2012-09-05September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 5, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow
and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Christopher J. Dumler.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said he had distributed a resolution for the Board’s consideration regarding eminent
domain, but given Mr. Dumler’s absence, he would like to add it to the agenda for the September 12, 2012
meeting.
_____
Ms. Mallek indicated that she had a few questions on the status of EMS cost recovery – billing
residents for ambulance services.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Mr. Thomas reported that Rockydale Quarry was awarded the contract for the Airport gravel –
13,000 cubic yards – but the County’s ordinance could stop them from fulfilling the contract. They are
working on an alternative.
Ms. Mallek asked if this was due to hours of operation. Mr. Thomas responded that the work has
to be done in the middle of the night.
Ms. Mallek commented that the work and stockpiling could be done during the day, with the
delivery at night. Mr. Thomas responded that the stockpiling cannot be done during the day because the
consistency of the material deteriorates if they move it from one place to another and stockpile it. It has to
be put in place. He said that the quarry indicated it would take at least four nights to complete the
process, so they are going to pursue another avenue. Mr. Thomas said all the County can do is
recommend an ordinance amendment be filed.
Mr. Boyd asked if there were any provisions for a temporary permit. Mr. Thomas responded that
he did not know, but could ask the County Attorney. He added that the County has received so many
complaints about the quarry, he does not know how far a permit would go.
Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Willis has spoken with neighbors about the effort to get a contract. Mr.
Thomas said that he did not advise Mr. Willis to do that, but he could – although it is up to them how to
proceed. He added that he hates to see Rockydale lose all that business, but the County does have a
touchy situation out in that area anyway.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, stated that the ordinance currently prohibits operation
of equipment of an industrial type between the hours of midnight and 7:00 a.m. on property that is zoned
for natural resource extraction, with the only exemption being a case of public emergency as determined
by the Director of Emergency Services. This operation does not qualify for that exemption. Ms. McCulley
said that nighttime work may be going on in other locations, but the County does not receive complaints
about it.
Mr. Rooker said he does not understand why the Rockydale operation had to happen during those
hours. If Culpeper gets the contract he is doubtful they would be extracting the rock during the middle of
the night and shipping it down here.
Mr. Thomas said that he was told they would already be mining and would just be putting the rock
into the trucks.
Ms. McCulley explained that the loading is “power equipment of an industrial type,” and apparently
the hour of limitation is given by the Airport because those are the hours that they do not have flights.
Mr. Thomas reiterated that the reason they cannot stockpile it is because the consistency of the
rock has to stay a certain specification.
_____
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Mallek reported that she has sent several emails to VDACS and DEQ regarding a substance
being sprayed by VDOT contractors along the roadways, through agricultural areas, along the Moorman’s
River. She said that she has been “completely dissed” by VDOT despite her questions to them about the
spray, even though the CTB member has directed them to answer. Ms. Mallek stated that she was going
to file a FOIA request through VDACS to get the report from Mr. Burke on his response from her citizen
assistance complaint. She said that hopes VDOT will step up and inform the public as to what procedures
were used to make the decision, the rationale behind the choices made, and whether the contractors are
certified to do this work. Ms. Mallek said that foresters she has spoken with have indicated the process is
“complete overkill,” and farmers are quite upset because the spray trucks went by vineyards and hayfields.
She added that the chemicals VDOT says it is using are “completely contraindicated,” and are not allowed
to be used near water. Ms. Mallek stated that she also never received responses from VDOT as to where
they were spraying and what their plans were.
Ms. Mallek said that she thinks the County has been left completely in the dark, as are the
citizens, and she does not like that situation. She said that she will be stirring the pot more on this and
she hopes that they will have some answers soon. Ms. Mallek added that anywhere you are driving along
and you see leaves starting to turn brown, at the end of the branches, is a result of the spray. The
potential consequences are tens of thousands of dollars.
Mr. Rooker stated that this is described as a serious situation, and the Board should request
VDOT to provide full information on this so citizens understand what is being used, how it is being used,
and what the effects of it might be. He said he would support sending a letter from the Board asking for
full information on this.
Other Board members agreed.
Mr. Foley said that staff would send a letter as a request on behalf of the entire Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions:
Item No. 6a. Proclamation recognizing September 2012 as Alzheimer’s Month in Albemarle
County.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation to Ms. Mary Pat Hansen, Alzheimer’s
Annual Walk Director:
PROCLAMATION
ALZHEIMER’S MONTH
Whereas, the nation and the Commonwealth of Virginia observe World Alzheimer’s Awareness Month
during the month of September; and
Whereas, Alzheimer’s disease, a progressive neurodegenerative brain disorder, tragically robs
individuals of their memories and leads to progressive mental and physical impairments; and
Whereas, an estimated 5.4 million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease. As many as 200,000 of those
are individuals under age 65 who have younger-onset Alzheimer’s; and
Whereas, Alzheimer’s disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This
eventually fatal disease is a serious and growing threat to the health of our world; and
Whereas, the human cost of Alzheimer’s disease is staggering. More than 15 million caregivers
provided over 17.4 billion hours of unpaid care in 2011; and
Whereas, the annual cost to our country in total payments for healthcare, long-term care and hospice
for people with Alzheimer’s disease was $210 billion in 2011; and
Whereas, in recognition of the individuals, families, friends and caregivers dealing with Alzheimer’s
disease, the researchers who are seeking a cause or cure; and
Whereas, the County of Albemarle recognizes the efforts of the Alzheimer’s Association to raise funds
and promote awareness to fight Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders, thereby improving
the quality of human life for those living with Alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of September 2012, as Alzheimer’s
Awareness Month in Albemarle County, Virginia.
Signed and sealed this 5th day of September, 2012
Ms. Hansen thanked the Board for the proclamation. She then invited the community to attend
the Walk to End Alzheimer’s at Lee Park in Charlottesville. She said that the walk is the nation’s largest
fundraiser to raise funds for awareness, care and support and research, and 11% of every dollar raised
goes directly to research. Ms. Hansen noted that Alzheimer’s is the sixth leading cause of death in the
U.S. and of the top ten, it is the only one with no cure, no prevention, and no way to slow it down. She
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
added that September 21, 2012 is Alzheimer’s Action Day, and she encouraged the community to wear
purple on that day in support.
Ms. Mallek asked if the other 89% of funding was allocated to helping families. Ms. Hansen
responded that it was, and said that all of the money raised in the central and western Virginia chapter
stays in the local chapter.
_____
Item No. 6b. Proclamation recognizing September 2012 as National Preparedness Month in
Albemarle County.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation to Ms. Kirby Felts:
NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH
WHEREAS, “National Preparedness Month” creates an important opportunity for every resident of
Albemarle County to prepare their homes, businesses, and communities for any type of
emergency from natural disasters to potential terrorist attacks; and
WHEREAS, investing in the preparedness of ourselves, our families, businesses, and communities can
reduce fatalities and economic devastation in our communities and in our nation; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Ready campaign, Citizen Corps and other
federal, state, local, private, and volunteer agencies are working to increase public activities
in preparing for emergencies and to educate individuals on how to take action; and
WHEREAS, emergency preparedness is the responsibility of every citizen of Albemarle County and all
citizens are urged to make preparedness a priority and work together, as a team, to ensure
that individuals, families, and communities are prepared for disasters and emergencies of
any type; and
WHEREAS, all citizens of Albemarle County are encouraged to participate in citizen preparedness
activities and asked to review the Ready campaign’s Web sites at ready.gov or listo.gov (in
Spanish) and become more prepared;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby proclaims
SEPTEMBER 2012
as
NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH
and encourages all citizens and businesses to develop their own emergency preparedness
plan, and work together toward creating a more prepared society.
Ms. Felts thanked the Board for the recognition, and encouraged them to point constituents to
www.ready.gov, www.readyvirginia.gov, and www.listo.gov (Spanish) for information and resources.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Jonathan Lee, a resident of 565 Black Cat Road, said he and his family live adjacent to the
railroad property and on the north side of the bridge. Their primary concern is the aesthetics of the bridge
design. He said they would lose a lot of trees in front, and the railroad would take down a lot of trees
during construction – leaving them with a full-blown view of the new bridge. Mr. Lee stated that the design
calls for a chain-link fence structure that will encase the whole length of the bridge, which is not really in
keeping with the natural beauty and historic value of the area. He said that his kids described the view as
“looking at a prison.” He added that a number of people are present at the meeting to address truck traffic
as the road is not really wide enough to support truck traffic. Mr. Lee noted that there are usually two
types of trucks that he meets on the road with both of them attempting to turn around in his front yard as a
result of avoiding the bridge: those who are entirely lost and those who cannot speak English. He
suggested having global positioning providers let people know it’s not a good road for a truck as well as
Spanish verbiage on the sign.
_____
Ms. Ann Taylor said her farm is located on Routes 22/231 with the driveway almost opposite
Black Cat Road where it intersects with those roads. She said that the road is not appropriate for trucks,
and she often sees them attempting to make a tight turn to go off Black Cat either south or north on to
Route 231. About six years ago one truck didn’t make it – crashing into her neighbor’s stone gate. Ms.
Taylor stated that the site lines coming south on Route 231 do not permit oncoming traffic to realize a
truck is turning off of Black Cat until it is too late, and there are continuing accidents there. She said that
truck traffic has been an ongoing problem on that road, and she appreciates the Board’s attention to it in
the past. Ms. Taylor said that neighbors are now requesting that VDOT “not compound the problem” by
constructing a new bridge over the railroad tracks that would encourage more trucks to use Black Cat
Road. She said that as trucks over a certain length are not permitted on Routes 22/231, they should also
be prohibited from using Black Cat Road. Ms. Taylor added that the residents are also asking for VDOT
to design the bridge so that it conforms to the rural character of Black Cat Road, and should not be an “off
the shelf VDOT design that does not fit into the community.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Mallek said that the bridge at Advance Mills is a good example of a context-sensitive bridge,
so it certainly can be done.
_____
Ms. Ann Vanderwalker said that she has lived on Routes 22/231 for 15 years, and driving on the
roads there can be a terrifying experience. She cited several examples of dangerous encounters with
trucks on the road, and the last thing the residents need is more trucks on those routes. She asked for
the Board’s assistance in helping to make sure the new bridge does not encourage more truck traffic.
_____
Ms. Terry Lockhart said that she lives on Route 22 but has a back entrance onto Black Cat Road
where the two roads intersect. She said that she is very concerned about the plans for the bridge.
Increased truck traffic will make the narrow country road even more dangerous because there are no
shoulders to pull over onto. Ms. Lockhart also stated that there are impoverished people living along the
road, and some of their homes are very close to the road – so having truck traffic go along there will be
extremely loud for those residents.
_____
Mr. Tony Vanderwalker addressed the Board, stating that he lives on Routes 22/231. As Chair of
the Piedmont Environmental Council, they have been working for many years trying to strike a balance
between retaining community character and meeting transportation needs. He said they were currently
working with Warren and Clarke counties and VDOT on a low-water bridge over the Shenandoah River.
Mr. Vanderwalker said that the community’s point of view is similar to those in Keswick: that a bridge that
significantly varies from the existing structure could increase local traffic, with potential significant
increases in through-truck traffic. He emphasized that the bridge should be designed as a rebuild of what
is already in place in order to retain the community character. Mr. Vanderwalker said that VDOT’s policy
on bridge replacement is a “think ahead approach,” designed to accommodate future changes – and
citizens need a consensus from the Board that Black Cat Road is not going to be a major thoroughfare
between Routes 22/231 and I-64. The plans for the new bridge should not reflect that approach. VDOT
has plenty of bridge designs, and the residents would like the Board to request that VDOT present them
with a design that will not open Black Cat Road and Routes 22/231 to more truck traffic and will help retain
the character of our community.
_____
Dr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, stating that in a recent paper in the Journal of American
Planning Association – “Growing Cities Sustainably” – pointed out that no one ever questioned the
premise implied in growing smart. He stated that the current planning policy strategies for land use and
transport had virtually no impact on the major long-term increases in resource and energy consumption,
and smart growth principles should not unquestionably promote increasing levels of compaction on the
basis of reducing energy consumption without considering negative consequences. Dr. Battig said that in
many cases, this means less housing choice, crowding, congestion, and increased costs. He asked why
smart growth and sprawl remain in County policies in spite of proven negative impacts by a key study on
this subject. He noted that fossil fuels to power appliances such as air conditioners are sustainable,
adding that doing without just “leaves people groping for a source of reliable energy.” Dr. Battig indicated
that the Sierra Club accepted $26 million from gas company Chesapeake Energy to “bad mouth coal” until
that “turned sour.” He said that EPA regulations are helping to fulfill the Sierra Club’s goal of closing 522
coal-fired plants, and Germany is in the process of building 23 new ones.
_____
Mr. Bill Johnson said that he has lived on Black Cat Road for 40 years. Mr. Johnson said there
are more problems there than just a bridge – it is the right style of bridge, aesthetics and it does not need
to be made bigger as it will draw more traffic and bigger vehicles. He stated that VDOT should try to
consider where the traffic is coming from, which is often off of I-64 racing down Black Cat Road and
exceeding the 45 mph speed limit. Mr. Johnson mentioned that two people have been killed on that road
in the last 12 months, which should be a concern to VDOT.
_____
Mr. Bob Garland addressed the Board, stating that he is representing the board of the Canterbury
Hills Neighborhood Association, and will be speaking about Agenda Item No. 14. He said that the
proposal is to add Albemarle County to the list of localities enabled to regulate the outdoor storage of
inoperable vehicles on private property pursuant to Virginia Code 15.2-905. Mr. Garland stated that the
County currently regulates the storage of inoperable vehicles on private property under Section 18-4.12,
which states in part, “no inoperable vehicles should be parked or stored on a lot within any
agricultural/residential district including the rural areas zoning district unless the vehicle is within a fully
enclosed building or structure, whereas otherwise shielded or screened from view from all public roads
and adjoining properties. No more than two inoperable vehicles may be parked or stored on a lot.”
He presented photos of inoperable vehicles taken from the street, in his neighborhood. The
problem for residential neighborhoods is that having them in the midst of small lot sizes creates a visual
blight for the adjacent neighbors and causes a loss of property value and subsequent loss of tax base.
Mr. Garland said that their board is requesting that the Board pursue adding Albemarle County to the list
of localities enabled to regulate storage of inoperable vehicles, and once that is done, it requests that the
Board amend the previously mentioned ordinance to state: “no inoperable vehicles should be parked or
stored on a lot within any residential district unless the vehicle is within a fully enclosed building or
structure.” He emphasized that the residents are not requesting a limit on the number of vehicles or a
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
change in the agricultural/rural district, but feel that open storage of junk cars in residential areas is clearly
not appropriate.
_____
Mr. Jeff Monroe, a resident of 1608 Inglewood Drive, said that he is President of the Hessian Hills
Neighborhood Association – which is comprised of about 150 homeowners between the area of
Georgetown Road, Hydraulic Road, Barracks Roads and the City limits. He seconded Mr. Garland’s
recommendation that the Board ask for an amendment to §15.2-905. Mr. Monroe said this is not a huge
problem from the number of property owners in his neighborhood, only about two percent of the
properties, but having disabled vehicles creates a drain on property values in the area and creates greater
turnover in home ownership– as well as promoting additional rental housing in areas adjacent to those
properties. Mr. Garland said that it can also create a traffic hazard by making streets more congested with
the operable vehicles. He recommended that Board members drive down Solomon Drive, just before
Commonwealth Drive, to see examples of the problem.
_____
Mr. Ron Mallury, a resident of Keene, said he had read in the paper that the Board was
considering banning the burning of trash by residents. Mr. Mallury said he is 60 years old and has been
burning trash since 1959, and does not burn anything he should not burn and thus should not be
penalized. He stated that he has not had a raise in three years and recycles everything, with items taken
to the dump over the last seven months amounting to less than $7.00. Mr. Mallury said he lives from pay
day to pay day and cannot afford anything more. Mr. Mallury said that if he leaves trash outside without
burning it, animals such as bears will get into it. He said that putting a burden on people who obey the law
is not right. He added that the Fire Marshal said that as long as people are burning paper and things like
that, there is nothing wrong with burning. Mr. Mallury stated that he and his wife recycle as much as
possible. He cannot afford to pay monthly for a hauler to come down his narrow road and pick up their
trash.
_____
Ms. Colleen Keller, a resident of 675 Black Cat Road, emphasized what had previously been said
about the character of the road. Ms. Keller said there are many, many children boarding the busses from
that road, and the kids often wait out there alone. She stated that there are an enormous number of
residents who are not present at this meeting, including two women who walk to church every Sunday on
that road. It is a matter of safety.
_____
Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Board, stating that there
are several questions the PEC feels the Board needs to get VDOT to address immediately regarding the
Western Bypass. Mr. Werner said that the questions pertain singularly to the northern terminus as
presented in the Skanska preliminary design. In terms of safety improvements south of Ashwood
Boulevard, he said that the community was told that the vertical profile would be re-graded on northbound
Route 29 as it approaches that intersection, but this is not shown in the Skanska design – nor is it
mentioned in VDOT’s RFP. In terms of delays at Ashwood Boulevard, Mr. Werner said that Skanska’s
traffic analysis projects that turning left out of Ashwood onto southbound Route 29 will face delays of 12
minutes more during peak morning hours, and the firm states that the delays will occur even after future
improvements which are not part of the bypass or the future widening. He stated that the improvements
include three turning lanes for people leaving Ashwood and going south on Route 29. Mr. Werner said
that the question is what the projected delays there are for the year the bypass opens, and for each
successive year until those improvements are actually made.
He added that another question is what the impact will be to other intersections as people try to
divert away from the Ashwood intersection and go to other roads north in Forest Lakes. Mr. Werner noted
that there was a promise to widen Route 29 from four to six lanes between Polo Grounds Road and Town
Center, and last summer the TIP was amended to specifically state this. However, he said, the Skanska
design does not show six continuous lanes between Polo Grounds Road and Ashwood Boulevard –
probably because VDOT removed that condition in their RFP. Mr. Werner said the question is will that
work be completed and why VDOT didn’t tell the County they were removing the condition. He also stated
that he had reviewed the design proposals from the other bidders, and five of the seven included the six
continuous lanes.
_____
Ms. Sarah Lee Barnes addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of Keswick. She said
that many of the residents in the Black Cat Road neighborhood are successive generations that take pride
in that community. She said that of the neighbors she talked to, one was not informed and two were
horrified at the design of the bridge. Ms. Barnes stated that no one doubts that the bridge needs
replacement, but she does not understand why VDOT needs to go to the expense of putting up an “urban
ghetto suicide fence.” She said that the one at Shadwell and Route 250 was a disgrace, and she is
appalled that VDOT is doing this around the state. Ms. Barnes said there should be consideration for the
Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, and the height of the bridge is unnecessary for double-
stacked trains because they cannot fit through the Blue Ridge tunnel anyway. She asked the Board to
consider sending a stern letter to VDOT.
_____
Mr. Thomas said they have a bridge on Rio Road that includes the protective screening also.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Boyd pointed out that at its last meeting, the Board decided to write a letter to VDOT asking
for improvements to the bridge and improvements to the road that would prevent the truck traffic. He
asked if the letter had ever been sent.
Mr. Foley responded that he would need to follow up, as Community Development was planning
to do that.
Mr. Boyd said he agree with the speakers today that the Board needs to send a stern letter
representing the wishes of constituents, as the Route 231/22 truck traffic has been an issue for many
years – with his own involvement dating back to the time when Charles Martin was Supervisor of this
district. He stated that the truck lobbyists in Richmond have tried to prevent the County from doing as
much as it would like, but he does not think that is a reason for giving up.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Board supported a “no through truck traffic” on Routes 231/22 10 years
ago, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board did not designate it as such because Orange opposed
it – as did Wal-Mart. He said that the Board could go back and try to get it done again, as the road is not
built to standards to handle truck traffic nor is Black Cat Road. Mr. Rooker said one constituent who
commented by email sent some pictures of the proposed Broomley Road bridge, which is more
aesthetically pleasing and was approved by both VDOT and the railroad company.
Mr. Boyd said that the unanimous consensus of the Board should be to try to accommodate some
traffic calming on the road to keep Black Cat Road from becoming a cut-through for I-64.
Mr. Rooker stated that he would support that.
Mr. Foley said staff would provide the Board with a status update.
Mr. Boyd also said that he had also received emails noting truck size restrictions on that road.
Ms. Mallek said there was a large sign on Route 250 that limits trucks by footage.
Mr. Boyd noted that it is difficult to police that road, but if there is anything that could be done to
enforce the limits it would be helpful.
Ms. Mallek asked that staff circulate the proposed letter to Board members, along with her letter
regarding the spraying.
Mr. Rooker stated that he would support another request to the CTB to designate Routes 22/231
a “non through-truck” route. Ms. Mallek and Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Boyd asked if this was something they should include in their legislative agenda.
Mr. Rooker responded that the request goes to the CTB, but the letter should start with Mr. Jim
Rich.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, reported that he has sent a letter to Mr. Jim Utterback, Mr.
Joel Denunzio, and the project manager, requesting that the Black Cat Road bridge be designed at as
minimum as possible a width for two lanes at a design concept similar to the existing narrow two-lane
width. Mr. Benish said that he spoke with both of them before sending the letter, and while they did not
make any commitments they were aware of the issues and concerns.
Ms. Mallek asked if the design hearing has already been held. Mr. Benish responded that it has.
Mr. Rooker said the first problem is there is a bridge that needs to be replaced, and secondly, the
bridge must be able to accommodate emergency vehicles of all sizes, school buses, etc. The Board could
possibly cure one problem and cause another problem. Building a narrow bridge may make it difficult for
those larger vehicles to use it – and there is no way to accommodate pedestrians crossing the bridge. He
stated that at Broomley Road, the County decided in favor of a bridge with two full lanes and a four-foot
shoulder on one side so pedestrians and cyclists could cross the bridge while vehicle traffic is crossing.
Mr. Rooker said that the question is whether a bridge can be built to be aesthetically pleasing and still
accommodate travel but limit truck traffic, and maybe the bridge is not the best way to limit truck traffic.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there are other ways to keep trucks off the road than perhaps that constriction
point.
Mr. Boyd reiterated that the Board lost the battle to restrict truck traffic on Routes 22/231, but it
has not lost it yet on Black Cat Road and perhaps VDOT would agree to that – so pedestrian and vehicle
traffic could be accommodated.
Mr. Thomas noted that Meadow Creek Parkway has a sign banning truck traffic, and asked if the
County could do that on Black Cat.
Mr. Rooker explained that the City controls its own streets; it designated the road a no through
truck-traffic road – but the County’s roads are owned by the state, and the CTB has to make the
designation.
Ms. Mallek said there is a petition process that could be reactivated with this.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Boyd said he would like staff to move forward with that, and to start a separate process of
designating Black Cat Road as a no through truck-traffic road.
Mr. Rooker commented that he does not think the limit would garner much opposition.
Mr. Foley said that a letter has already been sent as Mr. Benish mentioned, but staff would put
one together that asks for restrictions on the road altogether.
Mr. Boyd said that could be a separate request.
Ms. Mallek stated that the “monstrosity” VDOT built on a small road in Madison County gave the
state “a huge black eye” a few years ago, and supposedly is now more responsive to citizen concerns.
Mr. Davis explained that there is a process for requesting that a road not be subject to truck
traffic. It includes notice, a public hearing, and a resolution that must be passed by the Board after the
hearing – and a number of specific findings that have to be made, including determination of an alternate
route for truck traffic that can avoid that road. He said that Mr. Benish has been through this process
before, so staff could work on gathering information on how to move forward.
Mr. Boyd noted that the County could indeed demonstrate the availability of an alternate.
Ms. Mallek said she was planning to pursue it for Earlysville Road also, as 18-wheelers and
tandem trailers are now using the road to go from Hydraulic Road to the industrial area by the Airport,
instead of staying on Route 29.
Mr. Foley stated that staff would bring it forth on the next agenda, and copy the Board on the letter
that went to VDOT.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Snow, to approve Items 8.1 (as read) through Item 8.13 on the consent agenda and to accept the
remaining items as information. (Note: Discussions on individual items are included with that agenda
item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dumler.
_____
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: July 11 and August 1, 2012.
Mr. Thomas had read his portion of the minutes of July 11, 2012, pages 1-28 (end at
Item #11), and found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read his portion of the minutes of July 11, 2012, pages 71 (begin w/Item
#17) – 93 (end at Item #22), and found them to be in order with some typographical errors.
Mr. Snow had read his portion of the minutes of July 11, 2012, pages 93 (begin w/Item
#22) – end, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Mallek had read her portion of the minutes of August 1, 2012, pages 1-20, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Boyd asked that his portion of the minutes of August 1, 2012, be pulled and carried
forward to the next meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
_____
Item No. 8.2. Set public hearing on Ordinance to Amend the Open Burning provisions in Chapter
6, Fire Protection, of the County Code.
The executive summary states that on July 11, 2012, the Board received an executive summary
on the issue of open burning of household refuse by owners and tenants of property in the County
(Attachment A). The Board instructed staff to draft an ordinance prohibiting such open burning of
household refuse for its consideration. A proposed draft ordinance is attached (Attachment B-copy on file).
The proposed ordinance:
1. prohibits the open burning of household waste, refuse, and garbage throughout the
County; and
2. updates the definitions in Section 6-403 to parallel definitions set forth in the applicable
sections of the Virginia Administrative Code.
If the Board adopts the proposed ordinance, staff expects only a minor increase of 10-20
hours of Court time annually if the County continues to follow a complaint-driven model, and
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
believes this is manageable within current budget and staffing, as set forth in the July 11, 2012
Executive summary (Attachment A).
Staff recommends that the Board set the attached draft ordinance (Attachment B) for a public
hearing. After the public hearing, staff will request that the Board reach consensus on the proposed
ordinance and authorize staff to submit the consensus proposed ordinance to the Air Pollution Control
Board for its approval. After such approval the ordinance will be presented to the Board for final
consideration and adoption.
(Discussion: Mr. Thomas asked if the proposed language is available. Ms. Mallek commented
that the proposed language is attached to the executive summary.
Mr. Boyd noted that they were only setting up a public hearing date with this action.
Ms. Mallek stated that there is a draft that could be revised as needed, and, if adopted by the
Board, it would then go to the State Air Pollution Control Board for final approval.
Mr. Snow asked where the public could find the draft ordinance.
Mr. Foley said it is available in the Board packet, the Clerk’s office and online.
Ms. Mallek noted that it would also be advertised once a hearing date is set.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board set the proposed ordinance for public hearing on
October 10, 2012.
_____
Item No. 8.3. 2012 Agricultural Disaster Declaration Resolution.
The executive summary states that Michael Lachance, Virginia Cooperative Extension (“VCE”)
Agent, corresponded with a number of fruit orchard owners in Albemarle and Nelson Counties regarding
damage they sustained to their crops and orchards due to the high winds associated with the derecho that
occurred on June 29, 2012. He reports his findings in the attached Storm Damage Report (Attachment
A). The report indicates that Central Virginia fruit producers are reporting 20% to 100% losses on apple
and peach crops, as well as tree losses that will become multi-year losses, and that requests from local
governments could encourage the reopening of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Tree
Assistance Program (TAP), which is currently closed.
A Resolution requesting that Albemarle County be declared an Agricultural Disaster area is
attached for the Board’s consideration and adoption (Attached B). If the County is declared an Agricultural
Disaster area, local farmers who have suffered monetary losses due to tree and fruit loss may be able to
pursue tree replacement and rehabilitation through the USDA TAP. The Program is currently closed. The
attached Resolution requests the Governor to pursue reopening the Program.
There is no budget impact to the County.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution requesting that Albemarle County
be declared an Agricultural Disaster Area and requesting the Governor to pursue reopening the USDA
TAP Program.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution requesting that
Albemarle County be declared an Agricultural Disaster Area and requesting the Governor to
pursue reopening the USDA TAP Program:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT ALBEMARLE COUNTY BE DECLARED AN AGRICULTURAL
DISASTER AREA DUE TO DERECHO LOSSES
WHEREAS, the derecho on June 29, 2012 severely impacted the County of Albemarle, including
significant impacts on its fruit producers; and
WHEREAS, Central Virginia fruit producers reported losses from 20% to 100% of their 2012 apple
and peach crops due to the high winds associated with the June 29, 2012 derecho; and
WHEREAS, Central Virginia fruit producers also reported trees blown over or damaged due to the
derecho’s high winds, which will become a multi-year loss of production; and
WHEREAS, the tree fruit specialist from the Agriculture and Natural Resources Division of the Virginia
Cooperative Extension has reported up to 100% fruit loss to individual orchard blocks in some localities; and
WHEREAS, requests from local governments could encourage the reopening of the United States
Department of Agriculture Tree Assistance Program that provides assistance for tree replacement and
rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the declaration of an Agriculture Disaster in Albemarle
County is appropriate and necessary to address the damage, loss, hardship and suffering of fruit producers in
the County.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
requests that the County of Albemarle, Virginia be declared an Agricultural Disaster Area as recommended by
the Virginia Cooperative Extension due to fruit loss and tree damage from the June 29, 2012 derecho.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk forward this Resolution to the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia with a request that he takes all necessary steps to pursue reopening the USDA
Tree Assistance Program.
_____
Item No. 8.4. Resolution to accept road(s) in Ivy View Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 5th day of
September 2012, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Ivy View Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-
4.3 dated September 5, 2012, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Ivy View Subdivision, as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated September 5, 2012, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Langford Drive (State Route 1637) from .2 miles west of Route 1630 (end of F177) west to
the end of the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 3064, pages 357-364, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.19 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.43
_____
Item No. 8.5. Resolution to accept road(s) in Fray’s Grant Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 5th day of
September 2012, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Fray’s Grant Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form
AM-4.3 dated September 5, 2012, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Fray’s Grant Subdivision, as described on
the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated September 5, 2012, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Fray’s Ridge Court (State Route 1881) from Route 1880 (Fray’s Ridge Crossing) west to
the end of the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 3074, pages 166-182, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.19 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.19
_____
Item No. 8.6. Resolution to accept road(s) in Montgomery Ridge Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 5th day of
September 2012, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Montgomery Ridge Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated September 5, 2012, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Montgomery Ridge Subdivision, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated September 5, 2012, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Natali Lane (State Route 1790) from the intersection of Route 1788 (Montgomery Ridge
Road) to .095 miles east as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2824, page 461, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.10 miles.
2) Montgomery Ridge Road (State Route 1788) from the intersection of Route 1789 (Monet
Hill) to 0.138 miles north as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2824, page 461, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.00 miles.
3) Montgomery Ridge Road (State Route 1788) from the intersection of Route 1791
(Michelangelo Court) to 0.144 miles north as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2824, page 461, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.14 miles.
4) Monet Hill (State Route 1789) from the intersection of Route 1788 (Montgomery Ridge
Road) to 0.253 miles west as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2824, page 461, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.25 miles.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
5) Montgomery Ridge Road (State Route 1788) from the intersection of Route 643 (Polo
Grounds Road) to .243 miles north as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2824, page 461, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.24 miles.
6) Michelangeo Court (State Route 1791) from the intersection of Route 1788 (Montgomery
Ridge Road) to 0.240 miles east as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2824, page 461, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.24 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.97
_____
Item No. 8.7. Resolution to accept Peter Jefferson Parkway Ext and Martha Jefferson Drive into
the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 5th day of
September 2012, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Peter Jefferson Parkway Ext and Martha Jefferson Drive, as described
on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated September 5, 2012, fully incorporated herein by reference, is
shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Peter Jefferson Parkway Ext and Martha
Jefferson Drive, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated September 5, 2012, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Martha Jefferson Drive (State Route 1100) from Route 1140 (Peter Jefferson Parkway)
north to Route 1117 (State Farm Blvd) as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 4077, page 311, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.35 miles.
2) Peter Jefferson Parkway (State Route 1140) from Route 1100 (Martha Jefferson Drive) to
Route 1117 (State Farm Blvd) as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 4077, page 311, with a 80-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.49 miles.
3) Peter Jefferson Parkway (State Route 1140) from /38 miles southwest of Route 250 to
Route 1100 (Martha Jefferson Drive) as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 4077, page 311, with a 80-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.09 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.93
_____
Item No. 8.8. FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
The total of the requested FY 2012 appropriations itemized below is $61,705.14. A budget
amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not
exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of three (3) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012089) to reappropriate proffer revenue offsetting affordable
housing programs and de-appropriating the equivalent amount in use of fund balance.
This appropriation will not increase the County budget ; and
Two (2) appropriations (#2012090 and #2012091) totaling $61,705.14 for various school
division programs.
Appropriations 2012090 and 2012091 include an itemization of the School Division’s receipts. We
note that this process is streamlined for FY 13 appropriations as approved by the Board on July 11, 2012.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2012089, #2012090, and #2012091.
*****
Appropriation #2012089 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
Revenue Source: Other Fund Balance (Proffers) $ 111,385.21
General Fund Fund Balance ($ 111,385.21)
This request re-appropriates $58,009.66 from the Belvedere proffer, $20,359.50 from the North Point
proffer, and $33,016.05 from the Poplar Glen proffers for a total of $111,385.21 to the Office of Housing’s
Community Development Fund, formally titled the Community Development Loan Fund for affordable
housing programs. These proffer funds are specifically dedicated to affordable housing and were
originally appropriated on February 2, 2011 as part of appropriation #2011063.
The funding has been expended and this request is to properly account for the affordable housing proffer
funds in FY 12. This action replaces the use of General Fund monies, and does not increase the budget.
Appropriation #2012090 $58,883.23
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (non-tax) $ 27,610.11
Federal Grant Revenue $ 31,273.12
This request is to appropriate various FY 12 School Division funds as approved by the School Board on
June 14 and June 28, 2012. This appropriation request of $58,883.23 includes the following:
Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,642.81 from the Murray
Elementary PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to fund the cost of SOL
tutoring for March and April 2012 at Murray Elementary School.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,351.08 from the
Stone Robinson PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse the
school budget for paying teachers in the Enrichment Program during the winter of 2012.
Hollymead Elementary School received donations totaling $1,520.00. The donors have requested
that these contributions be used to help offset expenses incurred in FY 12 for the Destination
Imagination Globals competition at Hollymead Elementary School.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $671.74 from the Stone
Robinson PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse the school
budget for paying teachers in the Enrichment Program during the spring of 2012. These funds
were used to fund the the Mad Science (K1) and Mad Science programs at Stone Robinson
Elementary School.
Henley Middle School received two donations from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support
Organization totaling $4,646.88. The donor requested that their first contribution of $2,066.88 be
used to help fund the “Enrichment Time before 9” program for the month of May, 2012 at Henley
Middle School. The second contribution in the amount of $2,580.00 was to help fund the At-Risk
After Study program at Henley.
The Building Services Department received a check in the amount of $1,008.00 from Dunbar
Milby Williams Pittman and Vaughn Consulting Structural Engineers. This payment represents a
refund to the County as the county made a duplicate payment to the above mentioned business.
The Building Services Department received payments totaling $347.52. These checks were from
Cycle Systems and they are to reimburse the County for items such as hand rails, duct work, chair
legs, etc. that have been replaced with funding from their operational budget. Building Services
takes the unused metal to be recycled and Cycle Systems sends a check for those items.
Albemarle High School (AHS) reimbursed its School Division budget in the amount of $3,304.46
for expenses incurred by student activities and athletics. The funds to reimburse the School
Division budget came from the Activity Accounts at AHS.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
The Albemarle Resource Center (ARC) received a check in the amount of $26.00 to reimburse
their budget for festival posters.
Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) reimbursed its School Division budget in the amount of
$5,591.62 for expenses incurred by student activities and athletics. The funds to reimburse the
School Division budget came from the Activity Accounts at WAHS.
Marie White, a teacher at Red Hill Elementary School, has been awarded a Learning &
Leadership grant in the amount of $4,500.00 from the NEA Foundation. The purpose of this grant
is to lead a study group that will focus on the use of differentiation through the discussion of
proactive, purposeful, responsive and learner centered instruction. These funds were used to
purchase study materials, meeting refreshments, cover costs of substitute teachers and stipends
for participating teachers.
The Charlottesville Area Community Foundation (CACF) is a permanent endowment dedicated to
improving the quality of life for the people of the City of Charlottesville and the counties of
Albemarle, Buckingham, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson and Orange. Albemarle High School
was awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Community Endowment Fund in the
CACF. The Community Endowment Fund is the Foundation’s unrestricted grant making program
that provides support to nonprofit organizations working to improve the quality of life in the CACF
service area. These are local funds. These funds were used to purchase resources and supplies
for a field trip to Germany this past summer.
Greer Elementary School was awarded a federal USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program grant
in the amount of $31,273.12. These funds were used to provide students with nutrition education
and a fresh fruit or vegetable snack twice a week.
Appropriation #2012091 $2,821.91
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (non-tax) $ 2,821.91
This request is to appropriate the following School Division donation and reimbursement as approved by
the School Board on July 12, 2012. This appropriation request of $2,821.91 includes the following:
The Department of Instruction received a donation in the amount of $25.00. The donor requested
that this donation be used for teaching materials to be given during Teacher Appreciation week.
Albemarle High School (AHS) reimbursed its School Division budget in the amount of $2,796.91
for expenses incurred by student activities. The funds to reimburse the School Division budget
came from the Activity Accounts at AHS.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the following appropriations #2012089,
#2012090, and #2012091.
APP #2012-089
DATE 08/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Re-appropriate Affordable Housing proffers Related to APP 2011-063 Office of Housing’s Community
Development Loan Fund
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 51000 351000 512068 9999 58,009.66 Trs Fr Belvedere Proffers
3 1000 51000 351000 512069 9999 20,359.50 Trs Fr North Point Proffers
3 1000 51000 351000 512070 9999 33,016.05 Trs Fr Polplar Glen II Proffers
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 (111,385.21) GF Fund Balance
3 8536 51000 351000 510100 9999 58,009.66 Belvedere-App Fund Balance
4 8536 93010 493010 930009 9999 58,009.66 Belvedere-Trsf to GF Fund Balance
3 8538 51000 351000 510100 9999 20,359.50 North Point-App Fund Balance
4 8538 93010 493010 930009 9999 20,359.50 North Point-Trsf to GF Fund Balance
3 8546 51000 351000 510100 9999 33,016.05 Poplar Glen II-App Fund Balance
4 8546 93010 493010 930009 9999 33,016.05 Poplar Glen II-Trsf to GF Fund
Balance
APP #2012-090
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from the School Board meeting on June 14 and June 28, 2012
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
3 2000 62000 318000 181109 6599 5,591.62 Contributions
3 2000 62000 318000 189900 6599 4,685.98 Misc. Revenue
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 11,160.77 Contributions
3 2000 62000 318100 189909 6599 671.74 Trust Receipts
4 2000 62100 461740 138000 6599 5,186.15 PT Wages - Laborer
4 2000 62100 461740 210000 6599 405.47 FICA
4 2000 62114 461320 601700 6502 26.00 ARC - Copy Supplies
4 2000 62205 461101 580100 6105 1,520.00 Hollymead - Dues & Memberships
4 2000 62210 461101 152100 6110 2,808.00 Stone-Robinson - Sub Wages
4 2000 62210 461101 210000 6110 214.82 Stone-Robinson - FICA
4 2000 62215 461101 152100 6114 2,455.00 Cale - Sub Wages
4 2000 62215 461101 210000 6115 187.81 Murray ES - FICA
4 2000 62252 461101 160300 6252 4,316.66 Henley - Stipends/Cur. Dev.
4 2000 62252 461101 210000 6252 330.22 Henley - FICA
4 2000 62301 461101 137100 6301 752.74 AHS - PT Wages Bus Driver
4 2000 62301 461101 210000 6301 57.57 AHS - FICA
4 2000 62301 461101 301210 6301 1,240.00 AHS - Contract Services
4 2000 62301 461101 420100 6301 796.40 AHS - Field Trip Mileage
4 2000 62301 461101 600260 6301 106.28 AHS - Food for Meetings
4 2000 62301 461101 601300 6301 351.47 AHS - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62433 462420 600700 6505 347.52 Bldg. Svcs. - Repair/Maint. Supplies
4 2000 62433 462410 312400 6505 1,008.00 Bldg. Svcs. - Prof. Svcs. Engineering
3 3010 63010 333000 330001 6599 31,273.12 Grant Revenue - Federal
4 3010 63010 460204 129300 6520 3,000.00 OT Wages - Food Service
4 3010 63010 460204 210000 6520 250.00 FICA
4 3010 63010 460204 600200 6520 1,000.00 Food Supplies
4 3010 63010 460204 600220 6520 24,413.00 Student Snacks/Meals
4 3010 63010 460204 800100 6520 2,610.12 Machinery/Equipment - Addl
3 3104 63104 318000 181240 6599 1,000.00 CA. Commun. Foundation Grnt
3 3104 63104 318000 189900 6599 4,500.00 Misc. Revenue
4 3104 63104 460700 420100 6301 1,000.00 AHS - Field Trip Mileage
4 3104 63104 460700 152100 6107 1,151.42 Red Hill - Sub Wages
4 3104 63104 460700 160300 6107 2,054.58 Red Hill - Stipends/Cur. Dev.
4 3104 63104 460700 210000 6107 242.00 Red Hill - FICA
4 3104 63104 460700 600260 6107 302.00 Red Hill - Food for Meetings
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6107 750.00 Red Hill - Ed/Rec Supplies
TOTAL 117,766.46
APP #2012-091
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from the School Board meeting on July 12, 2012
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318000 189900 6599 2,796.91 MISC REVENUES
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 25.00 CONTRIBUTIONS
4 2000 62301 461411 301210 6301 1,500.00 CONTRACT SERVICES
4 2000 62301 461411 601600 6301 500.41 DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
4 2000 62301 461411 350000 6301 796.50 PRINTING & BINDING
4 2000 62111 461311 601300 6501 25.00 EDUC. & RECREATION SUP.
TOTAL 5,643.82
_____
Item No. 8.9. FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2013 appropriations itemized below is $1,046,050.49. A budget
amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not
exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of nine (9) FY 2013 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013031) totaling $3,206.65 for rental income and expenses
related to the Old Crozet Elementary School;
One (1) appropriation (#2013032) totaling $7,355.00 for City-funded programs provided
by the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service;
One (1) appropriation (#2013033) totaling $74,947.00 for a Department of Criminal
Justice Services grant awarded to Offender Aid and Restoration;
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
One (1) appropriation (#2013034) to appropriate $53,640 from the Reserve for
Contingencies to Virginia Supportive Housing fund. This appropriation will not increase
the total budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2013035) totaling $9,560.38 to re-appropriate a grant and
contributions to the Sheriff Department’s volunteer reserves programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2013036) totaling $15,608.00 for a grant awarded to the Police
Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013037) totaling $67,986.00 to re-appropriate three public safety
grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2013038) totaling $817,387.46 to appropriate and re-appropriate
Emergency Communication Center projects; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012039) totaling $50,000 for revenue associated with School
Division grants, donations, and School Activity Funds.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2013031, #2013032, #2013033, #2013034,
#2013035, #2013036, #2013037, #2013038 and #2012039.
*****
Appropriation #2013031 $3,206.65
Source: Local Revenue (Rent) $ 3,206.65
This request is to appropriate $3,206.65 in rental income revenues to fund costs of the Old Crozet
Elementary School and is intended to be used for major capital replacements and repairs (e.g., roof
repairs and asbestos abatement.) The terms of the recently renewed leases with the Field School of
Charlottesville and the Old Crozet School Arts (OCSA) resulted in an increase of $3,206.65 in annual total
rent revenues over the amount budgeted in FY 12.
Appropriation #2013032 $7,355.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 7,355.00
(Contribution from City of Charlotteville)
This request is to appropriate $7,355.00 in revenue from the City of Charlottesville for services provided
for the City by the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service (VCES). This funding was approved by the City
after the adoption of the FY12/13 budget. The City’s contribution to the VCES is received by the County.
The County is billed by the VCES for services provided to the County and City.
Appropriation #2013033 $74,947.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 71,200.00
Local Revenue (Contribution from CCJB) $ 3,747.00
This request is to appropriate a Department of Criminal Justice Services grant (#13-C2156AD11) that will
be managed by Offender Aid and Restoration with the County of Albemarle as fiscal agent. The grant
includes $71,200.00 in federal funds and $3,747.00 in matching funds that will be provided by the
Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) for a total award of $74,947.00. The grant will support the
Criminal Justice Planner position which provides training for Crisis Intervention Treatment (CIT) teams.
The goals of the project are to organize all participating CIT teams and programs (mental health and
criminal justice) within the Commonwealth, to develop data and statistical collection documents and to use
a software database system to collect and organize the required data mandated by the General Assembly.
Once appropriated, the County Executive will sign the necessary grant award documents for submission
to the funding agency.
Appropriation #2013034 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
Revenue Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 53,640.00
This request is to appropriate $53,640.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Virginia Supportive
Housing (VSH) fund for the specific purpose of funding monthly contributions to VSH to provide rental
subsidies at The Crossings for nine homeless persons that would otherwise be funded through the
federally-funded Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. This appropriation provides funding for the
remaining 10 months in FY 12/13, however, once final approvals are received from the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, and HCV vouchers are issued, local funding will be discontinued. At
its August 1, 2012 meeting, the Board approved this contribution pending staff developing an agreement
with VSH. This agreement is being presented to the Board for approval under a separate executive
summary on the Consent Agenda on September 5, 2012.
Appropriation #2013035 $9,560.38
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 5,315.03
General Fund Balance $ 4,245.35
This request is to re-appropriate the following items related to the Office of the Sheriff:
$5,315.03 for a grant (#154AL-2012-52108-4486) awarded in FY 11/12 by the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles. The purpose of this grant is to assist in the purchase of radar units
as well as funding overtime hours for DUI checkpoints and speed enforcement.
$4,245.35 in contributions that were received to support the Sheriff’s volunteer reserve programs.
These contributions will support the various reserve programs such as Project Lifesaver, TRIAD,
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Search and Rescue, child fingerprinting, and any other programs/activities that the Reserves are
involved in within the community.
Appropriation #2013036 $15,608.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 15,608.00
This request is to appropriate $15,608.00 for a grant (#2012-DJ-BX-0571) from the U.S. Department of
Justice awarded to the Police Department. The purpose of this grant is to assist in funding overtime hours
of current officers in support of reducing crime and improving public safety through additional community
policing. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2013037 $67,986.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 67,220.75
Special Revenue Fund Balances $ 765.25
This request is to re-appropriate the following public safety grants:
$9,001.00 for a grant (#154AL-2012-52193-4571-Highway Safety Grant) awarded by the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles to the Police Department. The purpose of this grant is to assist in
the purchase of equipment and training, and to fund overtime hours for DUI checkpoints and
speed enforcement.
$2,985.00 for a grant (#12-B2149AD09) from awarded by the Department of Criminal Justice
Services to the Police Department. The remainder of this grant will support software maintenance
costs for the Evidence Unit’s records management system.
$56,000.00 for a grant awarded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the
Fire Rescue Department. While this four-year grant ended in FY 11/12, FEMA has provided the
County a continuance through October 2012 to use the remaining funds for the recruitment of fire
and rescue volunteers. These recruitment efforts will be targeted primarily for the Ivy Station.
Appropriation #2013038 $817,387.46
Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 817,387.46
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the
ECC:
Re-appropriate $527,387.46 from the ECC Mobile Data Project 4115 Fund Account for an
undelivered FY 11/12 purchase order for the ECC’s Mobile Data Project. The Mobile Data Project
is a joint project between the County, the City, and the University of Virginia that puts mobile
computer capabilities in public safety vehicles while on the road. Some of the current operational
functions include: access to complete CAD call for service information in near real-time;
Department of Motor Vehicle, license and wanted checks through the local, state and federal
records systems; and automatic vehicle location information for equipped vehicles.
Appropriate $50,000 for the Emergin Paging/Notification System Replacement Project. The ECC
is replacing its current Emergin Wireless Office text messaging system, which will move the
current text messaging system to a platform that can handle current data needs. The current
software is at the end of its life and and is no longer being maintained by the vendor.
Appropriate $240,000 for the ECC Network Upgrade Project. This is the first of a two phase
project which will replace the ECC’s network and server infrastructure. The first phase will replace
the core network switching equipment and transition the network from one gigabit Ethernet to ten
gigabit Ethernet. With the newer network in place, this phase will also replace legacy servers with
a virtualized server and data storage platform, which is necessary to allow continuing system
growth without running out of physical space and resources. The second phase to complete the
project is scheduled for FY 13/14.
Appropriation #2013039 $50,000.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Donations) $ 50,000.00
At the July 11, 2012 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board approved the streamlining of the
appropriation process for anticipated FY 12/13 School Fund revenue for grants, donations, and School
Activity Funds. On August 1, 2012, the Board approved an initial appropriation that included $17,500.00 in
anticipated donations. The School Division has already exceeded this amount of donations by $1,224.00
before the school year began. The School Division anticipate there will be a number of donations
throughout the school year. This request is to appropriate an additional $50,000.00 in donations. Funds
will not be expended until the revenues are actually received.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the following appropriations #2013031,
#2013032, #2013033, #2013034, #2013035, #2013036, #2013037, #2013038 and #2012039.
APP #2013031
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Old Crozet Elementary School Rent
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
3 8610 15000 315000 150262 9999 $3,206.65 Rental Income
4 8610 91081 496010 800666 9999 $3,206.65 Old Crozet Sch Operating Maint
TOTAL 6,413.30
APP #2013032
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Virginia Cooperative Extension Service - Additional City Revenue/Funding
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 19000 319000 190308 9999 $7,355.00
4 1000 83000 483000 390000 1008 $7,355.00
TOTAL 14,710.00
APP #2013033
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: CIT Grant
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1519 33000 333000 330400 1003 71,200.00 Federal Revenue (DCJS)
3 1519 18110 318000 181310 1003 3,747.00 Community Criminal Justic Bd
4 1519 29412 421090 566122 1003 74,947.00 Community Criminal Justic Bd
TOTAL 149,894.00
APP #2013034
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Contribution to VA Supportive Housing for The Crossings
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 81030 481030 568815 1008 53,640.00 Virginia Supportive Housing
4 1000 99900 499000 999990 9999 (53,640.00) Reserve for Contingencies
TOTAL 0.00
APP #2013035
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Sheriff Reappropriations - Donation balance not reappropriated in July and a grant
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 4,245.35 Fund Balance
4 1000 21070 421070 301230 1002 4,245.35 Reserve Programs
3 1587 33000 333000 330011 1002 $5,315.03 Grant Revenue - Federal
4 1587 21070 421070 120000 1002 $3,158.63 Overtime
4 1587 21070 421070 210000 1002 $344.58 FICA
4 1587 21070 421070 600800 1002 $1,809.82 Vehicle Fuel
4 1587 21070 421070 800311 1002 $2.00 Radar Equipment - New
TOTAL 19,120.76
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
APP #2013036
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Police Grant
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1594 33000 333000 300001 1003 $15,608.00 Grant Revenue - Federal
4 1594 31013 431010 120000 1003 $14,499.00 Overtime Wages
4 1594 31013 431010 210000 1003 $1,109.00 FICA
TOTAL 31,216.00
APP #2013037
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Public Safety grant reappropriations
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1525 33000 333000 330214 1003 $56,000.00 DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
4 1525 31092 412020 580000 1003 $56,000.00 Miscellaneous
3 1586 33000 333000 330412 1003 $2,835.75 DCJS Byrne JAG Categorical Aid Fed
Byrne JAG
3 1586 51000 351000 510100 9999 $149.25 App fund balance
4 1586 31013 431010 312716 1003 $2,985.00 contracted services-software
maintenance
3 1589 33000 333000 330011 1003 $8,385.00 Grant Revenue - DMV Federal
3 1589 51000 351000 510100 9999 $616.00 App fund balance
4 1589 31013 431010 120000 1003 $8,060.00 Overtime
4 1589 31013 431010 210000 1003 $616.00 FICA
4 1589 31013 431010 800100 1003 $325.00 Machinery & Equipment
TOTAL 135,972.00
APP #2013038
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: ECC PO Reappropriation
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 4115 51000 351000 510100 9999 $527,387.46 App fund balance
4 4115 31065 435600 800316 1003 $527,387.46 mobile data project
3 4100 51000 351000 510100 9999 $290,000.00 App fund balance
4 4100 31040 435600 800727 1003 $50,000.00 Emergin Paging
4 4100 31040 435600 800728 1003 $240,000.00 ECC Network Upgrade
TOTAL 1,634,774.92
APP #2013-039
DATE 09/05/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Provide additional authority of $50,000 for anticipated donations to the School Division
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 50,000.00 Donations
4 2000 62101 461101 601300 6599 50,000.00 Reserve - Donations & Activity Funds
TOTAL 100,000.00
_____
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Item No. 8.10. Resolution to Establish Policy for Constitutional Officer Employees Regarding
Compensation, Benefits and Personnel Policies.
The executive summary states that Constitutional Officers and their operations are legally
separate and independent from localities, except that localities are required by State law to provide office
space and certain limited benefits. State law only requires that localities provide constitutional officer
employees two weeks of annual paid leave, seven days of annual sick leave, and health insurance.
Pursuant to prior direction from the Board, the County offers Constitutional Officers the
opportunity to include their employees in the County’s pay and classification system. Inclusion in this
market based pay and benefits plan can assure that Constitutional Officer employees are paid
comparable salaries to County employees and can be eligible for County approved pay raises rather than
the State raises that are typically less than market. One condition of this significant commitment by the
County to compensate Constitutional Officer employees at market salaries rather than at the level that the
State funds is that Constitutional Officer employees must be subject to and follow certain very basic
County personnel policies. The primary reason for this commitment is to assure that employees of
Constitutional Officers receive an annual performance review on the same basis and conditions as that of
County employees. This creates a clear link between Constitutional Officer employees’ job performance
and the County’s compensation system.
The Department of Human Resources, the County Executive’s Office, and the County Attorney’s
Office have worked with the Sheriff, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, and the Circuit Court Clerk to develop
and/or update Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to establish the application of certain County
compensation, benefits and personnel policies to the employees of the Constitutional Officers. On July
11, 2012, the Board approved the MOUs for the Sheriff and Circuit Court Clerk, and those agreements
have been fully executed. The Board deferred action on the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s MOU to allow
more time for the Commonwealth’s Attorney to review the agreement and the applicable HR policies.
Consistent with the MOUs for the Sheriff and the Circuit Court Clerk, the proposed MOU between the
County and the Commonwealth’s Attorney (Attachment A) includes provisions that the employees of the
Commonwealth’s Attorney will be covered under the County’s Classification and Pay Plan and will be
subject to all of the County’s personnel policies except for the Grievance Policy, several policies related to
hiring, discipline and the termination of employment, and any policies or provisions that are superseded by
State law. The policies that will apply to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s employees include those related
to salary administration, leave, benefits, merit pay evaluations, and course reimbursement, among others.
Benefits will accrue to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s employees, but not to the Commonwealth’s
Attorney.
Absent a MOU or other Board approval, Constitutional Officer employees are not entitled to
compensation and benefits provided to County employees.
The County offers the employees of the Constitutional Officers whose offices are on the County
pay and benefits plan substantial salary supplements and benefits beyond those required by State law. To
establish and clarify what employment regulations, procedures, and benefits apply to Constitutional Officer
employees, the common practice is for the Constitutional Officers to enter into an MOU with the locality.
Examples of such MOUs are available on the Virginia State Compensation Board website. Staff has also
received examples of MOUs from other localities, including peer localities such as Lynchburg. The
County MOUs are consistent with MOUs used by other localities.
Another approach used by localities, such as Roanoke County, is to establish a policy for
constitutional officers who request that their employees receive county compensation and benefits. In the
absence of a MOU, such a policy legally authorizes the payment of such compensation and benefits and
establishes how County compensation, benefits and personnel policies apply to the Constitutional Officer
employees. This approach establishes clear policy on how County compensation can be applied to
Constitutional Officer employees going forward for all future Constitutional Officers so that there is
consistency and fairness in how compensation and benefits are provided.
Staff does not recommend providing pay and benefits for employees of Constitutional Officers that
exceed that funded by the State Compensation Board without either a MOU or formal policy assuring that
the compensation is linked to comparable standards of performance of County employees. The proposed
Resolution (Attachment B) would formalize a Policy that establishes the same framework as the MOU if
the Constitutional Officer chooses that the office’s employees be on the County’s pay and benefits plans.
It would authorize and establish the compensation, benefits, and personnel policies applicable to
Constitutional Officer employees for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office or for any future Constitutional
Officer who does not wish to enter into a MOU while still allowing for the development of a MOU to
address any additional exceptions that may be appropriate. Regardless of the approach taken by the
Commonwealth’s Attorney, staff strongly recommends approval of the attached resolution to establish
clear County policy for all Constitutional Officer employees going forward.
This action does not increase the FY 13 Budget.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Resolution to Establish Policy for Constitutional
Officer Employees Regarding Compensation, Benefits, and Personnel Policies (Attachment B).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to Establish
Policy for Constitutional Officer Employees Regarding Compensation, Benefits, and Personnel
Policies:
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH POLICY FOR
CONSTITUTIONLAL OFFICER EMPLOYEES REGARDING
COMPENSATION, BENEFITS, AND PERSONNEL POLICIES
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to adopt a policy to establish the application of
certain County compensation, benefits and personnel policies to the employees of the Commonwealth’s
Attorney, Clerk of the Circuit Court, and the Sheriff (hereinafter “Constitutional Officers”) ; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that employees of the Constitutional Officers and County
employees all serve the residents of the County and it is desirable to establish a uniform personnel system
so that employees of the Constitutional Officers and employees of the County can have the same
compensation opportunities and benefits and can be subject to the same policies, procedures, and
regulations except as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, under state law, the pay scale and salaries for employees of Constitutional Officers
are set by the Virginia Compensation Board (“Compensation Board”), however, the Board of Supervisors
has the authority to supplement such state funded salaries if it deems it appropriate; and
WHEREAS, although not legally required to do so, the Board endeavors to maintain parity among
County and Compensation Board funded positions; and
WHEREAS, Constitutional Officers will be subject to this policy upon their written election to
include their employees under the County’s compensation and benefits policies or by entering into an
individually agreed upon Memorandum of Understanding.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby establishes the following policy:
1. Employee Status. Individuals employed by the Constitutional Officers are, and shall remain,
appointees of the Constitutional Officers rather than employees of the County. Nothing in this policy shall
alter or diminish the Constitutional Officers’ duties and rights with respect to their employees under the
Virginia Code, Title 15.2, Chapter 16, Article 5. The Constitutional Officers’ employees shall not be
covered by the County’s grievance procedures.
2. Compensation. Employees of the Constitutional Officers shall participate and be included in
the County’s pay plan and merit evaluation system. Future compensation increases offered by the
Commonwealth of Virginia through the Compensation Board will not be passed automatically to the
employees of the Constitutional Officers because their employees will be covered by the County’s pay
plan and merit evaluation system. Notwithstanding the above, compensation for the employees of the
Constitutional Officers will be no less than the compensation approved by the Compensation Board.
3. Benefits. All benefits of employment, including but not limited to health insurance, annual and
sick leave (except as limited by state law, including Va. Code Section 15.2-1605), insurance protection,
retirement programs, participation in deferred compensation programs, and other benefits available to
Albemarle County employees will be available to the employees of the Constitutional Officers and
governed by the personnel policies and procedures of Albemarle County.
4. County Personnel System. Without diminishing the Constitutional Officers’ authority to
appoint, hire or discharge their employees, Constitutional Officers must follow the County’s personnel
policies in force during the period of this policy except as otherwise required by law (such as the six-week
vacation leave accrual limit imposed by Va. Code § 15.2-1605) and except as specifically excluded by this
section. A list of the County’s personnel policies in effect as of the date of this Resolution is attached.
(Attachment A) The Constitutional Officers must follow all such policies except the following:
1. Assignment and Transfer (Policy P-38)
2. Employee Reduction in Force Procedures (Policy P-30)
3. Employee Discipline (Policy P-22)
4. Employee Grievance Procedure (Policy P-03)
5. Employee Relations Principles (Policy P-01)
6. Termination of Employment (Policy P-26)
The Constitutional Officers must comply with all Albemarle County Administrative Policies except
AP-1 (Grants Process) and AP-5 (Media Relations) and all applicable state and Federal laws regarding
FLSA, FMLA, and other such applicable statutes as applied to appointees of elected officials.
The County will provide assistance and services to the Constitutional Officers concerning the
personnel matters referenced in this Resolution through its Department of Human Resources and its
Finance Department. The Department of Human Resources will maintain all documents related to the
employment of the employees of the Constitutional Officers except for documents related to payroll, which
shall be maintained by the County’s Finance Department. The Constitutional Officers will forward any
such documentation to the appropriate County department in a timely fashion.
5. Limitations on Benefits to Constitutional Officers. The Constitutional Officers’ employees will
receive the compensation and benefits as set forth herein. Such compensation and benefits will be
available to the Constitutional Officers only to the extent required by applicable State law, such as Va.
Code § 15.2-1517(B) regarding group life, accident and health insurance.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
6. Application of policy. This policy shall apply to Constitutional Officers upon their written
election to include their employees under the County’s compensation and benefits policies and shall
remain in force for the duration of the Constitutional Officer’s term in office (including terms for which such
Constitutional Officer is re-elected), unless amended by the Board upon thirty (30) days prior written notice
or upon the Constitutional Officer’s election to remove the office’s employees from the County’s
compensation and benefits policies upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. This policy may be modified
or supplemented to address particular circumstances of a Constitutional Officer by an individualized
written Memorandum of Understanding properly executed and approved by both the Constitutional Officer
and the Board of Supervisors.
_____
Item No. 8.11. The Crossings at Fourth and Preston - Agreement between the County and
Virginia Supportive Housing to provide interim funding for nine housing units at The Crossings.
The executive summary states that at its March 3, 2010 Board meeting, the Board agreed to
designate nine federally-funded rental project-based vouchers to assist County homeless persons to
become residents of The Crossings at Fourth and Preston (The Crossings). The Crossings is a 60 -unit
efficiency apartment development with 30 of the units receiving rental assistance (21 from the City and 9
from the County). On or about April 28, 2011, the County’s Office of Housing executed an Agreement to
Enter Housing Assistance Payment Contract (AHAP), which is required for the commitment of vouchers
for to-be-constructed developments. The development was completed and ready for occupancy in early
March 2012 and the Office of Housing had approved nine individuals for the units. Questions raised by
Housing staff regarding allowable rent amounts resulted in discussions between Housing staff and HUD.
HUD staff informed Housing staff that all requirements had not been met in order for HUD to approve the
designation of the nine vouchers as planned. Most of the requirements were outlined in a notice from
HUD to Housing staff dated September 20, 2011, well after agreements to commit the vouchers had been
made.
In subsequent communications with HUD staff, it was determined that the County would have to
submit a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Annual Plan including the proposed commitment of project-
based vouchers. In addition, the County was directed to update its HCV Administrative Plan, which
describes policies for the use of vouchers, including designating vouchers as project-based. On June 6,
2012, the Board approved the County’s submission of the Annual Plan and approved the Administrative
Plan. Although HUD has approved the Annual Plan, they provided a number of comments suggesting a
number of revisions/additions to the Administrative Plan. The revised Administrative Plan will require
Board approval and is scheduled as a separate agenda item for the September 5, 2012 Board meeting.
On August 1, 2012, the Board voted to provide local funding as a contribution to Virginia
Supportive Housing (VSH), the nonprofit owner of The Crossings, to allow the nine County designated
homeless persons to move into The Crossings units due to the uncertainty of the timing of final approval
from HUD for the use of the nine vouchers at The Crossings. The Board agreed that it would commit
funding for up to twelve months or until HUD approves the use of the project-based vouchers, whichever
occurs first. This will require the Board to appropriate local funds for this initiative. That appropriation
request will be presented to the Board for approval as part of the FY 13 Appropriation request on
September 5, 2012. The Board requested that staff develop an agreement between the County and VSH
providing for County contributions to begin in September, 2012 for the sole purpose of providing this rental
assistance.
Pursuant to the Board’s direction, staff prepared an agreement (Attachment A) between the
County and VSH in which the County agrees to contribute to VSH up to a maximum of $5,364 per month,
beginning in September 2012, to be used by VSH to provide rental subsidies for up to nine previously
homeless County residents at The Crossings. This contribution will continue until the nine project-based
housing choice vouchers from the County can be approved by HUD and the vouchers are assigned to
VSH for payment, or for twelve months, whichever occurs first. The agreement sets forth the terms and
conditions for this contribution.
The maximum County contributions based on current rents would be $5,364 per month, or
$53,640 for the balance of the current fiscal year, and an additional $10,728 in FY14, for a total of
$64,368. The actual amount of subsidy required for September 2012 is $4,932, factoring in the amount
the tenants are required to contribute for rent based on ability to pay.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the agreement for the
use of County dollars for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) rent subsidies (Attachment A) on behalf of the
County contingent upon the Board’s approval of the appropriation to fund this contribution.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked for a status update including the time frame.
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, said the he continues to target December 1 to have the
Crossings issues resolved. The plan is to get the revised Administrative Plan back to HUD for its review.
He stated that he has been trying to schedule a face-to-face meeting with HUD staff, but because of
vacations and training it has been hard to coordinate. Mr. White said that he would like to terminate the
existing agreement and start the process all over, which will eliminate a lot of the requirements that HUD
said the County did not meet in the first place. He stated that he wants to know that HUD will approve this
other alternative and help expedite its approval. Mr. White said there are some set-aside funds at HUD,
and he plans to submit an application by Friday for that. He noted that the Richmond field office is
backing the County on the need for additional funds to ensure there is enough cushion to take over the
nine vouchers.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Boyd asked if there could be more frequent reporting on the nine residents who are being
helped by this beyond the annual update, as they have been taken on as an expense to the County.
Mr. White responded that they are recertified annually for the voucher program, and that would be
the same process used in the interim period – so he could certainly get information from the Crossings on
how they are doing. He stated that he would like to see how they are doing as far as supportive benefits,
such as SSI, which they now qualify for because they have a residence.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
agreement for the use of County dollars for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) rent subsidies on
behalf of the County contingent upon the Board’s approval of the appropriation to fund this
contribution:
August 3, 2012
Rev. Kathryn F. Talley
Deputy Executive Director
Virginia Supportive Housing
5008 Monument Avenue, Suite 200
P.O. Box 8585
Richmond, VA 23226
Re: Agreement for use of County dollars for SRO Rent Subsidies
Dear Reverend Talley:
As you are aware, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has agreed to allocate funds to
The Crossings at Fourth and Preston, LLC to provide affordable housing for certain qualified Albemarle
County residents. This letter shall serve as an Agreement between the County of Albemarle (hereinafter
referred to as the “County”) and The Crossings at Fourth and Preston, LLC (hereinafter referred to as the
“Recipient”) regarding the terms and conditions that must be agreed upon to receive the County
contribution. If there are any questions involving any of the following information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
The following terms and conditions concerning these funds shall apply:
Funding: The following funds, if approved by the Board of Supervisors on or before September 5, 2012,
will be available for the Recipient:
The County will contribute up to a maximum of $5,364 per month (hereinafter “Monthly Payment”)
for fiscal year 2012-13. The Monthly Payment shall begin effective September 2012 and extend
for up to a maximum of twelve (12) calendar months, subject to future appropriations by the Board
of Supervisors, and shall be used solely to provide rental subsidies for up to nine (9) previously
homeless County residents located at The Crossings at Fourth and Preston. This Monthly
Payment is the maximum to be provided in the current fiscal year and is subject to adjustment due
to actual occupancy, resident’s ability to pay, and off-set by future County Project-Based Housing
Choice Vouchers (as they become available).
This Monthly Payment shall be applied to the rent for previously homeless persons who are very-
low to low-income households earning less than fifty percent (50%) of median income under
current income guidelines as provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
The minimum rent to be paid by such previously homeless persons will be $50 per month or 30%
of their income (whichever is m ore). Any monthly rent amount, including subsidies, shall not
exceed $646 unless such rent increase is requested in writing by the Recipient and approved by
the County. In all cases, any rent increases must be consistent with U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development regulations and policies for Housing Choice project-based vouchers.
Term: This Agreement shall remain in effect (1) until such time as nine (9) Project-Based Housing Choice
Vouchers from the County can be approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
and vouchers are assigned to the 9 units and processed for payment, or (2) for a twelve-month term;
whichever occurs first.
Payment: The method of payment will be by check issued by the County payable to the Recipient,
contingent upon receipt of a written request from the Recipient, which request shall document the
intended use of the funds (to include the funds due for the number of individuals being assisted for that
month, less rent payments by the tenant) (hereinaf ter “Invoice”). Upon the request of the County, the
Recipient shall provide written documentation, including but not limited to lease agreements or cancelled
checks, demonstrating how funds provided pursuant to this Agreement were expended by the Recipient.
Alterations: The Recipient agrees that its obligations to expend funds for the purposes specified, and in
accordance with the terms and conditions referenced under “Funding” above, will not be modified or
altered without the prior written approval of the County.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Quarterly Reports: The Recipient agrees to submit to the County’s Chief of Housing quarterly program
progress reports at the end of each calendar quarter after funding is provided to the Recipient. In addition,
on the 30th day of June of any year this Agreement is in effect a comprehensive report covering the agreed
upon objectives, activities and expenditures will be submitted covering the entire Agreement period.
Monitoring: The County Housing Office will schedule one (1) monitoring visit each fiscal year to evaluate
the program’s progress and performance. At this time, staff shall be provided access to all program -
related records and materials.
Subcontracts and Assignments: No part of this Agreement may be assigned or subcontracted without
prior written approval of the County, which approval may be granted or withheld in the sole discretion of
the County.
Termination of Agreement: The County may terminate this Agreement at any time by providing written
notice to the Recipient of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least 120 days
before the effective date of such termination. If the Agreement is terminated, the Recipient will promptly
return all unexpended funds provided pursuant to this Agreement.
Insurance to be Provided by the Recipient: Upon execution of this Agreement the Recipient shall file
with the County certificates of policies of public liability, automobile liability (including non-ownership and
hired vehicles) and property damage insurance satisfactory to the County and in compliance with the law,
and in form and amount sufficient to protect the County. Each certificate or policy shall carry the provision
that the insurance shall not be canceled or reduced without prior notice to the County. All insurance
required by this paragraph of the Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect for the entire
Agreement period, or until such time as all units leased with funding provided herein have been sold. THE
COUNTY SHALL BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER SUCH INSURANCE
CONTRACTS, which shall contain a stipulation that the insurance provided shall not terminate, lapse or
otherwise expire, prior to the thirty (30) days written notice to that effect, given by the insurance carrier to
the County.
The Recipient shall not perform any work or services under this Agreement during any period of time in
which the Required Insurance is not in effect. The Recipient’s failure to comply with the requirements of
this section shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling the County to terminate this
Agreement without notice and without penalty to the County.
(A) The Minimum Limits of Liability Coverage shall be as follows:
Comprehensive General Liability, including Premises and Operations, Elevator Liability;
The Recipient Protective Liability, Products Liability, including completed Operations
Coverage; and Contractual Liability, for this Agreement.
Limits: $1,000,000/$2,000,000
(B) Comprehensive Automobile Liability, including all owned Automobiles; Non-owned
Automobiles; Hired Car Coverage (if applicable).
Limits: $500,000/$1,000,000
(per occurrence/annual aggregate)
Indemnification: To the extent permitted by law, the Recipient hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and
save the County (including its officers, agents, officials, employees, and agents) harmless from and
against any and all liability loss, claim, suit, damage, charge or expense which the County may suffer,
sustain, incur or in any way be subjected to, on account of death or of injury to any person (including,
without limitation, County officers, agents, employees, licensees, and invitees) and for damage to, loss of,
and destruction of any property whatsoever, which arises out of, results from, or is in any way connected
with actions taken by the Recipient in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or which
occurs as a consequence of any negligence, omission or misconduct of the Recipient and any of the
Recipient’s subcontractors, agents or employees in the performance of the Recipient’s obligations under
this Agreement.
Public Disclosure of Agreement Documents: The Recipient acknowledges and understands that this
Agreement, and all related public proceedings and records, shall be open to the inspection of any citizen
or any interested person, firm or corporation, in accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
(Va. Code § 2.2-3700 et seq.) to the extent that those laws apply. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
County and the Recipient agree that they will not release any information that would be protected under
Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3800, the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act.
County Access to Records: The Recipient agrees that duly authorized representatives of the County
shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records which are directly pertinent to this
Agreement for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions.
The County and Recipient acknowledge and agree that for the purposes of this section that Va. Code Ann.
§ 55-248.9:1 of the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act allows for the release of tenant
information to a government entity where such records are defined as Public Records herein: “Public
records” mean all writings and recordings that consist of letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set
down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostaffing, photography, magnetic impulse, optical or
magneto-optical form, mechanical or electronic recording or other form of data compilation, however
stored, and regardless of physical form or characteristics, prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
public body or its officers, employees or agents in the transaction of public business. Records that are not
prepared for or used in the transaction of public business are not public records.” Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-
3701 (2012).
Non-Discrimination: During the performance of this Agreement the Recipient agrees that it will not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex,
national origin, age, disability or any other basis prohibited by law relating to discrimination in employment,
except where there is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation
of the contractor. The Recipient agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and
applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision for employees placed by or on behalf of the
contractor, that it is an equal opportunity employer.
Drug-Free Workplace: During the performance of this Agreement the Recipient agrees as follows: (i) to
provide a drug-free workplace for its employees; (ii) to post in conspicuous places, available to employees
and applicants for employment, a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, sale,
distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance or marijuana is prohibited in the
Recipient’s workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violations of
such prohibition; and (iii) state in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of
the Recipient that it maintains a drug-free workplace. For the purposes of this paragraph, “drug-free
workplace” means a site for the performance of work done in connection with the contract awarded to a
contractor in accordance with this transaction, where the contractor’s employees are prohibited from
engaging in the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of any controlled
substance or marijuana during the performance of the contract notices, advertisements and solicitations
placed in accordance with federal law, rule or regulation shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of
meeting the requirements of this section.
No Waiver of Rights: No failure on the part of the County to enforce any of the terms or conditions set
forth in this Agreement shall be construed as or deemed to be a waiver of the right to enforce such terms
and conditions. No waiver by the County of any default or failure to perform by the Recipient shall be
construed as or deemed to be a waiver of any other and/or subsequent default or failure to perform. The
acceptance of the performance of all or any part of this Agreement by the County for or during any
period(s) following a default or failure to perform by the Recipient, shall not be construed as or deemed to
be a waiver by the County of any rights hereunder, including, without limitation, the County’s right to
terminate this Agreement.
Independent Contractor: Neither the Recipient nor its agents, employees, assignees or subcontractors
shall be deemed employees or agents of the County by virtue of any services performed pursuant to this
Agreement of the contractual relationship established hereby. The Recipient shall have sole responsibility
for its staff, employees and volunteers, including their work, personal conduct, directions, and
compensation.
Severability: In the event that any term, provision or condition of this Agreement, or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and application of any term, provision or condition
contained herein to any person or circumstance other than those to which it has been held invalid or
unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby.
Modification: This Agreement may be modified by the parties during performance, but no modification
shall be valid or enforceable unless in writing and signed by each of the parties hereto in the same
manner and with the same formality as this Agreement.
Non-Appropriation: The payment obligations of the County in future fiscal years are expressly
conditioned upon the availability of and appropriation by the Board of Supervisors of sufficient public funds
therefore in succeeding fiscal years. When public funds are not appropriated or are otherwise unavailable
to support continuation of payment by the County in any fiscal year, this Agreement and the County’s
obligations hereunder shall automatically expire without liability or penalty to the County. Within a
reasonable time the County shall provide the Recipient with written notice of any non-appropriation or
unavailability of funds affecting this Agreement. The County will notify the Recipient within ten (10)
business days of the failure to appropriate additional funds. The County shall seek approval of
appropriations one hundred and fifty (150) days in advance of the termination of the current fiscal year
such that the County can meet the notice requirements referenced herein.
Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. All litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be commenced and
prosecuted in the federal, state or local court(s) having jurisdiction within the County of Albemarle,
Virginia.
Entire Agreement: This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties and there are
no other agreements or understandings between the parties, either verbal or written, which have not been
incorporated herein.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
If all of the terms and conditions set forth herein are acceptable to the Recipient, please sign both copies
of this letter and return them to me for approval by the County.
Sincerely,
Ronnie L. White
Chief of Housing
The signatures below represent an agreement to all terms outlined in the above agreement:
THE CROSSINGS AT FOURTH & PRESTON, LLC
Name: ____________________________
Title: ____________________________
Date: ____________________________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
Name: ____________________________
Thomas C. Foley
Title: County Executive
Date: ____________________________
Approved as to form:
__________________________
County Attorney
_____
Item No. 8.12. Housing Choice Voucher Program - Administrative Plan.
The executive summary states that the Albemarle County Office of Housing (“Office”) is the
designated local agency for the administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program (“Program”),
formerly known as the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. The Office is considered a part of the
executive branch of local government and not a public housing authority. Although not a housing
authority, the Office must comply with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)
requirements for Public Housing Agency (“PHA”) activities, including the development and implementation
of a 5-Year PHA Plan with annual updates as necessary and an Administrative Plan which specifies
policies adopted by the County.
On June 6, 2012, the Board held a public hearing on the County’s Annual Plan for its Program and
approved both the Annual and Administrative Plan. HUD has formally approved the County’s Annual Plan
and provided comments on the Administrative Plan. On August 1, 2012 HUD submitted its comments on
this Plan to the Housing Office which has subsequently made revisions to the Administration Plan
reflecting these comments and guidance provided in PIH Notice 2011-54 (HA). The Office is required to
have the revised Administrative Plan (Attachment A) approved by the Board and submitted to HUD for
review.
Most of the HUD comments are associated with the Administrative Plan related to Chapter 20
(Project-based Vouchers). Only one item in the Plan, which dealt with maintaining waiting lists, was
determined to be unacceptable without a waiver from HUD. That item has been revised to require that the
Office maintain the waiting lists in order to comply with HUD regulations. The other changes add more
detail to certain policies. The June 6 approved Administrative Plan stated that the Office would comply
with the applicable federal regulations; however, HUD requested that some of those regulations be
detailed in the Plan.
There is no budget impact anticipated because of this action. HUD provides annual budget
authority for the voucher program from which any project-based vouchers may be funded.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to approve the
revised Administrative Plan and to authorize the Chief of Housing to implement the Program in
accordance with the approved Plan.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to approve the
revised Administrative Plan and authorized the Chief of Housing to implement the Program in
accordance with the approved Plan:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is a Public Housing Agency (“PHA”) as defined by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for the administration of the Housing Choice
Voucher Program (HCV); and
WHEREAS, federal requirements for the HCV program include that each PHA maintain an
Administrative Plan which sets forth policies for the administration of the program; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) approved an updated
Administrative Plan on June 6, 2012 which was submitted to HUD for review and comment; and
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
WHEREAS, HUD’s comments required revision of the Administrative Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Administrative Plan has been revised based on HUD comments and guidance
provided in HUD’s Notice PIH 2011-54(HA); and
WHEREAS, the Office of Housing is required to have the revised Plan approved by the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
hereby approves the revised Administrative Plan and authorizes the Chief of Housing to implement the
policies set forth in the plan.
_____
Item No. 8.13. Resolution to Support Restoration of State Funding For Aid to Localities.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
Resolution to Support Restoration of State Funding For Aid to Localities
WHEREAS, state financial assistance for mandated and high priority programs, including public
education, health and human services, public safety and constitutional officers, was $800 million less in FY12
than in FY09 and almost $500 million less in FY13 than in FY09; and
WHEREAS, cities and counties must balance their budgets during a time in which future state
assistance is unreliable, federal stimulus dollars are depleted, and real estate assessments are either
stagnant or in decline; and
WHEREAS, the Appropriation Act contains $50 million in across-the-board cuts to cities and counties
for FY13 and $45 million in FY14, under which localities are required to either elect to take reductions in
particular state aid programs, or to send the State a check for the amounts determined by the Department of
Planning and Budget ("Local Aid to the Commonwealth"); and
WHEREAS, the reductions are applied to essential services, including law enforcement, jail
administration, foster care and child protection services, election administration and social services; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle does not have the authority to unilaterally decide to discontinue
providing services such as election administration or to refuse to house and care for state prisoners in local
and regional jails; and
WHEREAS, the state budget cuts are not accompanied by any reductions in state-imposed mandates,
standards and service requirements, nor do they provide any administrative flexibility for local agencies; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle remitted $592,574 in FY12 and will be required to remit another
$490,565 in FY13; and
WHEREAS, cities and counties will have provided the state with $270 million by the close of FY13 for
this "Local Aid to the Commonwealth" program; and
WHEREAS, these reductions shift state costs to local taxpayers and artificially increases the amount
of state surplus revenue; and
WHEREAS, state revenues have continued to recover and the state has experienced a budget
surplus for the third consecutive year; and
WHEREAS, revenue collections for the County of Albemarle continue to reflect the struggling housing
market; and
WHEREAS, the state should not shift its share of the costs for mandates and responsibilities to local
governments.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle
asks Governor Bob McDonnell to submit a budget amendment to the 2013 session of the General Assembly
to reverse the $50 million-a-year reduction for the current year, FY13, and to eliminate the aid to localities
reduction in FY14;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of the General Assembly are requested to
support a budget amendment in the 2013 session of the General Assembly to reverse the $50 million-a-year
reduction for the current year, FY13, and to eliminate the aid to localities reduction in the budget for FY14.
_____
Item No. 8.14. Native Plant Database - Inclusion into the County’s Design Standards Manual.
The executive summary states that General Services staff, working in cooperation with a member
of the County’ Natural Heritage Committee, has prepared a database which catalogs plant species native
to the Piedmont region of Virginia, including Albemarle County. They have also built an application for this
database which guides users on plant selection based on how the plants will be used and other factors
(e.g. sunny or shady, wet or dry soils). This database is being released as the Piedmont Virginia Native
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Plant Database. Now that the initial work has been completed, staff is proposing to make this material
available to the public and encourage its use with development by referencing the materials in the
County’s Design Standards Manual, which is a guidance document to help design professionals.
By referencing this database in the Design Standard’s Manual, staff hopes to provide the
development community an easy to use guide for selecting plants that fit their situation and promote
protection of natural resources in the County. The use of this database will be strictly voluntary and is
provided to help those property owners or developers interested in promoting native vegetation within their
projects. For example, developers interested in obtaining LEED certification can benefit from this list, as it
simplifies obtaining credit for use of native species. This database will not be a static document. General
Services staff will revise and update it as staff and the community gain more experience with this
information.
No action is required from the Board, but staff would appreciate any comments Board members
may have as to how this material can be improved.
This work is being done with existing staff resources and no additional funding is needed.
This is for information only.
_____
Item No. 8.15. VDOT – Culpeper District, Monthly Report for Albemarle County, was received for
information.
The following special issues were provided in the report:
Bridges on Route 745, Arrowhead Valley Road—The road will be closed at the Rail Road
Bridge on the southern end of the road beginning on June 25th. The anticipated
completion date quoted by the contractor is September 1, 2012. The bridge is currently
owned and maintained by the Rail Road. Once the construction is completed the
maintenance will become the responsibility of VDOT.
Bridge Replacement Project on Route 637, Dicks Woods Road over Ivy Creek. The road
will be closed to through traffic at the bridge for an estimated two week period beginning
on August 27 with an estimated completion date of September 7.
_____
Item No. 8.16. Board-to-Board, A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was received for information.
_____
Item No. 8.17. County Grant Application Report.
The executive summary states that pursuant to the County’s Grants Policy and associated
procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the County’s application for and use of grants.
The attached Grants Report provides a brief description of one grant application submitted by the
County and ten awards received between May 15, 2012 and August 15, 2012. Four grants awarded are
continuation grants, which were also received in the two previous years. An eleventh grant has qualified to
move to the second phase of the application process, which makes it likely to be funded in the near future.
All grant funds are subject to appropriation by the Board prior to the expenditure of any funds
awarded to the County.
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
This report is for information only.
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY THROUGH August 15, 2012
The following grants were awarded since May 2012. Continuation grants are those that have been
funded in previous years but required reapplications.
SOURCE GRANT NAME AMOUNT MATCH DEPARTMENT PURPOSE
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant –
continuation grant
Federal Funds
$40,725 $2,144
County Grant
Matching Funds
Police Evidence Collection-
purchase of
surveillance and
monitoring equip
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant –
continuation grant
Federal Funds
$71,250 $3,750
Department
Budget
Commission on
Children and Families
Wilton Farms After
School Program –
prevention and control
of crime; YMCA
provides teachers and
staff
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant –
continuation grant
Federal Funds
$71,200 $3,747
CCJB Budget
Community Criminal
Justice Board
Crisis Intervention
Team – Data collection
and evaluation
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant –
continuation grant
Federal Funds
$706,090 OAR Probation and Pretrial
Services
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant
Federal Funds
$15,068 0 Police Community Policing –
overtime funding for
crime prevention &
problem solving
activities
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Internet Crimes
Against Children
Special Funds
$23,602 Police Equipment, Staffing,
and Training
SOURCE GRANT NAME AMOUNT MATCH DEPARTMENT PURPOSE
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Expansion Grant –
Pretrial Services
Federal Funds
$112,500 $28,175
Central Va
Regional Jail
$9,325
OAR
OAR Pretrial Services for
Fluvanna, Greene,
Louisa, Madison, &
Orange
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Victim Witness
Program
Federal Funds
State Special
Funds
$63,380
$21,126
Police Staffing, training, &
supplies for Victim
Witness Program
FEMA SAFER Fire
Grant
Fire Rescue
SAFER Grant
Federal Funds
$1,261,305 Fire/Rescue Funding for staffing Ivy
and Seminole Trail
stations (9 firefighters)
The following grant was selected to advance to Phase 2:
Dept. of Conser-
vation & Recreation
Selected to
advance to Phase
2-Pending Award
Federal Highway
Administration
Federal Funds
$86,250 $40,000
County Grant
Matching Funds
Parks and Recreation Provide 7 miles of new
and restored trails and
work at Preddy Creek
Trail Park
Applications were made for the following grants:
Charlottesville Area
Community
Foundation
BAMA Works
Fund
$10,000
Private
Funds
Department of Social
Services
Funding summer camp
for Family Support and
Bright Stars children
_____
Item No. 8.18. 2012 Second Quarter Building Report, was received for information.
During the second quarter of 2012, 89 building permits were issued for 89 dwelling units. There
were no permits issued for a mobile home in an existing park. There were no permits issued for the
conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
(Discussion: Ms. Mallek commented that while there were criticisms earlier in the meeting about
walkable communities and smart growth, the building reports reflect that the highest number of building
permits and highest values, except for Martha Jefferson Hospital, are in Old Trail – which is an example of
the type of neighborhood that people like.)
_____
Item No. 8.19. 2012 Second Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report, was received for
information.
During the second quarter of 2012, 88 certificates of occupancy were issued for 129 dwelling
units. There was one certificate of occupancy issued for a mobile home in an existing park, at an
exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the
conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
_____
Item No. 8.20. Revised 2011 Year End Building Report, was received for information.
The report states that there have been revisions to the data in Section III (Comparison of All
Building Permits) - Table V (Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type).
The revised reports reflect changes to the amounts associated with the Estimated Cost of Construction.
There was also a decrease (255 to 239) in the number of New Non-residential and Alteration to Residence
permits that were issued a certificate of occupancy. These revisions have no impact on the 2011 quarterly
Building and Certificate of Occupancy Reports.
_____
Item No. 8.21. Revised 2011 Year End Certificate of Occupancy Report, was received for
information.
_______________
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2011-00011. Lewis Bridge over Doyle’s River
(Signs #92&95).
PROPOSAL: Bridge crossing for driveway, fill for abutments, under sections 30.3.03.2,
30.3.05.2.1, 30.3.05.2.2, 30.5.5.2d6 of zoning ordinance.
ZONING: FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding. RA Rural
Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources. Residential uses allowed at a density of 0.5 unit/acre in
development lots.
LOCATION: East side of Browns Gap Turnpike (Rt. 810) approximately 0.22 miles south of Slam
Gate Road (Rt. 673).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 02700-00-00-006B0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 20 and August 27, 2012.)
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, said that this special use permit is for a proposed private
driveway bridge located off of Route 810, in the vicinity of Slam Gate Road. He provided a rendering of
the general location, noting the confluence of a tributary stream and the river and pointing out its close
proximity to the property corner. Mr. Brooks said the applicant tried to make this very much like the
upstream bridge, another private bridge that belongs to the Nagel’s – but it is a longer span and more
difficult section of floodplain so they went with a steel infrastructure faced with wooden beams for
consistency. He then presented an aerial map of the proposed bridge location and a depiction of how the
driveway will need to turn immediately after crossing the river to avoid the slope. Mr. Brooks also
presented an engineering drawing of the bridge itself and a photo of the general location, noting the
discrepancy in height of the far bank versus the near bank – which is about the same level as Route 810.
He said that most of the floodwaters go onto the road side, and presented a picture of the upstream bridge
they are attempting to emulate.
Ms. Mallek commented that the tributary stream comes in south of that bridge, so there is a
greater waterflow than the one being considered today. Mr. Brooks explained that it actually comes in just
downstream, but the floodwaters are joined at that point so the floodplain confluence encompasses the
bridge location.
Mr. Brooks said that the request was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on July
31, 2012, subject to five conditions recommended by staff.
Ms. Mallek asked why – in the context of the Water Protection Ordinance – this is being
recommended, given that there is an alternative that does not require this that has been used for years.
She said it is unquestionably an intrusion into the floodplain and can have consequences, and asked if
there was a building application or subdivision plan that goes along with this.
Mr. Brooks responded that he has only the information the applicant provided, and was told by the
applicant that he does not have access to the property currently from Route 810 and was using access
through another property owned by someone in the rear of the parcel.
Ms. Mallek commented that there are many properties that have access easements across other
properties.
Mr. Boyd asked if this was just changing access to an existing home on the property.
Mr. Brooks clarified that there is no residence on the property currently.
Mr. Rooker explained that there is consideration of this property being put into conservation
easement, that the current access would severely limit the ability to develop the property – which limits its
value for appraisal purposes. He said that he is speculating that the applicant is trying to get better access
in order to obtain an appraisal that makes it more worth their while to put the property in a conservation
easement.
Mr. Boyd said that he didn’t have a problem with that.
Ms. Mallek noted that there would be considerable improvements in the floodplain in order to get
up to high ground, and expressed concern that a future owner could certainly develop it and the fact that it
sets a precedent for other property owners. She is concerned that the County is potentially diminishing its
water protection ordinance if the Board is setting this kind of example as being something that is
acceptable when there may be alternatives.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Wyant, the applicant’s engineer, stated that the applicant wants to ensure that the look
of the bridge is in keeping with the environment. They started with a wooden structure but to stay out of
the streambed they had to change to steel construction. Mr. Wyant explained that he has surveyed the
grade going up to the driveway, and there is a 16% grade – with critical slopes avoided. He said that
many years ago, the Board approved a pond on the Mountfair Farm, which helps to do some flood control.
Mr. Wyant stated that they access the farm now through another parcel of land that comes out on Bluffton
Road. This will be the only bridge up through Doyle’s built to accommodate fire trucks in that area.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Ms. Mallek asked how that would work, given that there is no connection on this farm to Bluffton.
Mr. Wyant responded that he would have to put a road around the edge of the property.
Mr. Wyant explained that the applicant wants to put the property in easement, as well as putting a
pond on the property to help with fire control. He said that he has been doing some advanced planning for
the applicant, and has already designed a dam for the pond if necessary.
Mr. Rooker asked what the existing access to the property is currently. Mr. Wyant responded that
they go on Bluffton Road up through another parcel of land that he owns, but wants a separate access for
this parcel – an approved entrance – in order to obtain approval for the conservation easement on the 115
acres.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Mr. Thomas, to approve SP-2011-00011
subject to the five conditions recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dumler.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the
FEMA maps. This shall include FEMA’s conditional approval prior to the start of construction.
2. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for the bridges and abutments prior
to the start of construction.
3. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval for an erosion and sediment control plan,
and obtain a land disturbance permit according to the Water Protection Ordinance requirements
prior to the start of construction, regardless of whether the project exceeds the minimum
disturbance limits.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals prior to the start of
construction (Army Corps of Engineers, Departm ent of Environmental Quality, etc.).
5. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan prior to the start of
construction, and provide mitigation according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2012-00009. Southwood Boys & Girls Club
Expansion (Signs #84&85).
PROPOSAL: Request to allow the expansion of the existing Community Center on approximately
1 acre. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: R-2 which allows residential uses at a density of 2 units/acre. Section 14.2.2.1
Community Center.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential – residential (3-6 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-residential uses
in Development Area Neighborhood 5.
LOCATION: Southwood Mobile Home Park. 387 Hickory Street. Northeast corner of the
intersection of Hickory Street and Bitternut Lane. Hickory Street approximately 2,100 feet from the
intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Hickory Street.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090A10000001D0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 20 and August 27, 2012.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, reported that this is a request for a special use permit to
allow for expansion of the existing community center at Southwood, which is used primarily by the Boys
and Girls Club. He stated that the site is located in the Southwood Mobile Home Park, on the northeast
corner of Hickory Street and Bitternut Lane and is about 2,000 feet from Old Lynchburg Road. Mr. Benish
said that the request is to expand the community center to accommodate up to 120 children in the center,
which is currently operating at capacity with 80 children. He explained that in order to increase the
capacity, the applicant is proposing a transportable modular building up to 1,900 square feet along with a
small addition – approximately 360 square feet – to the existing community center. Mr. Benish said the
proposal will provide much needed comprehensive youth development services in the Southwood
community and will provide for a larger community center and a place to serve that community.
Renovations will enhance the current site. He stated that staff found no unfavorable factors to the
application.
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission reviewed the request on July 31, 2012 and has
recommended approval with the conditions as outlined in the action letter. Mr. Benish said that staff
recommends approval of the proposal with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rooker commented that he is glad to see this happening.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is wonderful they have so many kids who want to come.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. James Pierce, Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Virginia, addressed
the Board, stating that they have a waiting list which is why they are proposing this change. He thanked
the Board for everything they have done for the Boys and Girls Club over the years. He said that between
the Jouett Club and Southwood Club they have over 400 members, although not attend every day. Mr.
Pierce stated that they are looking to expand the space primarily to accommodate teens, who do not
necessarily want to come when their younger siblings are there. This addition will allow for segmented
space for an additional population that is vital to have in the club. He said that over the past summer they
had 70 kids who did not lose ground in their reading achievement, due to a partnership between the Boys
and Girls Club and County schools. Mr. Pierce stated that the Police Department is also a strong partner,
and he thanked Colonel Sellers for their help. He also thanked Ms. Claudette Grant for all her work.
Mr. Snow stated that he had toured the facility over the summer, and the work they are doing is
terrific. He said that he fully support the request.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to approve SP-2012-00009
subject to the five conditions recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dumler.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Development shall be in general accord with the concept plan titled Southwood Boys and Girls
Club Expansion, dated April 13, 2012 (hereafter “Concept Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Concept Plan, the
proposed building and existing building renovation and use shall reflect the following major
elements within the site essential to the design of the site, as shown on the Concept Plan:
Location of buildings, uses, and structures, inclusive of the minimum setback for the new
structure from Bitternut Lane must be fifteen (15) feet;
Location of parking areas; and
Location of outdoor play area
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; and
2. The parking study is based on a maximum of one hundred twenty (120) children. There shall be
no more than one hundred twenty (120) children at any one time served at this location of the
Boys and Girls Club.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2012-00012. Regents School of Charlottesville
(RSC) (Signs #81&82).
PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit for School of Special Instruction. Utilize existing structure, no
additional buildings proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office – offices, supporting
commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre).
SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 23.2.2(6) of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for School
of Special Instruction.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 1 - Rural Areas – preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 3045 Ivy Road Charlottesville VA.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05900-00-00-023G1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 20 and August 27, 2012.)
Mr. Benish addressed the Board, stating that this is a request for a special use permit for a school
of special instruction on a 12.5-acre parcel zoned Commercial Office, and no new structures are proposed
as the school will use existing structures on the site and will have a limit of 60 students and a staff of nine.
He said that the school serves grades K-8. The property is located on the corner of Broomley Road and
Route 250 West/Ivy Road. Mr. Benish said that the surrounding properties are zoned C-1, Highway
Commercial, and the Farmington development north of the railroad is zoned Rural Areas. Mr. Benish
stated that the school is located in the rural areas as designated in the Comp Plan, but this is old zoning
from prior actions in the 60s and 70s.
He said that the Christian Aid Mission Complex, where the site is proposed to be located, consists
of four buildings on 12.5 acres – and the administrative building is the proposed structure for the use, with
the basement of the building currently used by the Korean Church and the Regent School planning to use
the first and second floors. Mr. Benish said that the recreation, play and physical education activities
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
would take place in a designated area, as shown on the concept plan provided. He also presented a
photo of the building that is proposed to be used, with six classrooms and a multi-purpose room on one
floor and seven classrooms on the second floor.
Mr. Benish said that favorable factors include: the use is consistent with the current land use
plan, and is principally consistent with the current zoning of the development in that area; it provides
alternative school options for people who live and work in the area; it is using under-utilized structures;
and there are no anticipated detrimental impacts to adjacent properties. He noted that staff found no
unfavorable factors. The proposed conditions of approval are provided to the Board – with the
Commission having unanimously recommended approval of the proposal.
Ms. Mallek asked if “school of special instruction” was a zoning term or an education term. Mr.
Benish responded that it is a zoning term that refers to a school as opposed to a daycare. He noted that
one of the conditions for the age limit of 2.5 is to distinguish it from a nursery school.
Mr. Boyd asked why there was a condition restricting food preparation.
Mr. Benish explained that the site is on a septic system, and there are som e limitations given all
the buildings on the site and the total potential of the septic system. He said that the applicant did not
intend to cook meals at the class, but this protects them from those limitations. Mr. Benish stated that the
condition stipulates that they get Health Department approval to ensure they have the capacity for kitchen
activity.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Chris Fornay addressed the Board, stating that he is a Board member of Regent School of
Charlottesville, which is a “classical Christian school” that educates children K-8. Mr. Fornay said that
they have outgrown their current facility in Jefferson Park Baptist Church next to Frye Springs Beach Club.
The Christian Aid Mission has allowed them use of their property for their expanded enrollment. He stated
that students bring in brown bag lunches almost every day, but occasionally do have a pizza day or hot
lunch brought in. They have no problem with the condition regarding no food preparation on site because
of concerns from the Health Department.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Snow, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve SP-2012-00012
subject to the five conditions recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dumler.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The school is limited to the existing administrative building and grounds, as shown on the concept
plan (Attachment A). All parking for the facility shall be located in spaces designated on the
concept plan as P1, P2, and P3. Any additional buildings or other site changes beyond those
shown on the approved site plan for SDP1992-052 titled “Christian Aid Mission Administration
Building” prepared by William W. Finley and date approved July 14, 1994 require an amendment
to this Special Use Permit.
2. Maximum enrollment shall be sixty (60) students.
3. All students shall be over the age of two and one-half (2 ½) years old.
4. Hours of operation for the school shall be between 7:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., except that occasional
school-related events may occur after 4:00 p.m.
5. No food preparation is permitted onsite without an amendment to this Special Use Permit.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: ZTA- 2012-00009. Site Plan Process Improvements.
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 32, Site Plans, 35.1, Fees, and 35.2, Calculation of fees in special
circumstances, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would add and
delete definitions (3.1), repeal existing site plan regulations (32.1 through 32.7.10.2) and add new site plan
regulations in Sec. 32 pertaining to general provisions (32.1 et seq.), applicability (32.2 et seq.),
administration (32.3 et seq.), procedures for submittal, review and action on site plans (32.4 et seq.), the
form and content of initial site plans (32.5 et seq.), the form and content of final site plans (32.6 et seq.),
minimum standards for improvements (32.7 et seq.), and the completion of on-site improvements and
providing surety (32.8 et seq.). This ordinance also would amend Sec. 35.1 to add a $500 fee for pre-
application plans but this fee would also be applied toward the initial site plan fee which remains
unchanged from the current preliminary site plan fee, add a $240 fee for resubmitting a final site plan
within 15 days after it has been disapproved for being incomplete, change references to fees from
“preliminary” site plans to “initial” site plans, and change cross -references to revised section numbers to
which fees pertain. This ordinance also would amend Sec. 35.2 to change references from “preliminary”
site plans to “initial” site plans. The proposed fees are authorized by Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2241(9) and
15.2-2286(A)(6).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 20 and August 27, 2012.)
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
“The Action Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 6, 2010 directed staff to bring
forward recommendations for “reducing unnecessary and burdensome regulations and shortening
approval times.” On August 4, 2010, the Board adopted an Economic Vitality Action Plan. Objective 2 of
that plan stated: “Simplify and create certainty in the development review process, giving the applicant a
reasonable expectation for the time and cost needed for development review when applicants are
adhering to the regulations appropriately.” One of the stated strategies to achieve Objective 2 was to
“consider amendments to the development ordinances to reduce complexity of plan approval.”
At the conclusion of the August 3, 2011 joint work session among the Board, the Planning
Commission and the Architectural Review Board (the “ARB”), the Board directed staff to develop
proposed amendments to the County’s site plan and subdivision regulations to address the following:
1. Preapplication submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues and required
waivers.
2. Reduced plan content to minimum necessary for review.
3. Public notified of Site Review Meeting and asked to attend and provide com ment.
4. Establish clearer submittal requirements for the final site plan.
5. Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project
withdrawn.
6. Allow the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial (preliminary site plan).
7. Agent approval instead of PC approval. ARB reviews projects in Entrance Corridor
Districts prior to preliminary approval.
In addition to the August 3, 2011 joint work session, the Planning Commission held two work
sessions, the ARB held two work sessions, and staff conducted two public roundtables to develop and
discuss potential ordinance amendments. On July 17, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the zoning text amendment for the Site Plan Process Improvements (the “ordinance”). The
Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance, with four recommended changes
noted in the section immediately below.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) would completely revise and reorganize the County’s site
plan regulations.
A. The Ten Key Elements of the Zoning Text Amendment
The ten key elements of the zoning text amendment are addressed below. The first seven
elements address the directives from the Board at its August 3, 2011 joint work session with the
Planning Commission and the ARB.
1. Establish a preapplication process with staff review within 10 days to identify the
main issues and the need for any required variations, exceptions and special
exceptions.
The preapplication process established in the ordinance will allow staff and developers to
quickly and easily identify major issues with a development proposal and the need for any
required variations, exceptions and special exceptions. This is expected to streamline the
review process because formal applications, when made, will be more complete. This
should also eliminate delays in the review process caused by confusion over requests for
more information or the lack of necessary information to review a proposal.
2. Allow grading permits to be issued upon approval of the initial (preliminary) site
plan.
The ordinance will allow grading permits to be issued upon approval of the initial site plan.
This will shorten the total time required to build out a development and bring the site plan
regulations in line with the County’s current subdivision and planned development
regulations on this issue. Grading permits to allow the construction of streets within a
subdivision may occur after approval of the preliminary plat and the road plans. In planned
developments, grading permits may be issued upon approval of an erosion and sediment
control plan that is consistent with the application plan.
3. Establish clear submittal requirements and review procedures for final site plans.
The current regulations do not provide clear guidance about the final site plan submittal
requirements and the approval process. The ordinance will establish clear submittal
requirements and a review procedure, which will reduce the burden on the developer and
the time required for final site plan approval.
4. Significantly reduce the detail required for minor site plan amendments.
Minor changes to a site plan occur frequently. Currently, a small change to a site plan
affecting only a portion of the site still requires all the inform ation for a full site plan
showing the entire project. The ordinance will allow the agent to reduce the amount of
detail required for a minor site plan amendment by allowing the proposed amendment to
focus only on the area of change and allowing the agent to require sufficient information
to review only that change.
This change addresses the directive of the Board at its August 3, 2011 joint work session
to reduce plan content to the minimum necessary for review. It is staff’s opinion that only
a limited reduction in plan content is possible for initial or final site plans and that
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
significant reductions in plan content could result in a reduction in the quality of the
resulting developments.
5. Provide for an administrative review process solely by the agent.
Under the current regulations, most site plans are reviewed and acted upon by the site
plan agent. However, abutting landowners and members of the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors may “call up” any site plan for review and action by the Planning
Commission. Because the review and approval of site plans is ministerial in nature, site
plans that satisfy the minimum requirements of the County’s site plan regulations and
other applicable regulations must be approved. Given the ministerial nature of site plans,
this process has extended the time for site plan review but has not brought corresponding
value to the process. The ordinance will provide that all site plans will be reviewed and
administered by the agent and site plans will no longer be able to be called up to the
Planning Commission for review and action. However, the agent’s decisions will continue
to be appealable to the Planning Commission and thereafter to the Board of Supervisors.
This change should reduce the time required to process an application and reduce the
Planning Commission’s workload and allow it more time to spend on other planning and
zoning matters.
The ordinance will continue the current requirement that staff provide notice to abutting
landowners that an initial site plan for the abutting site has been submitted and allow them
to attend the site review committee meeting and submit comments.
6. Incorporate the Architectural Review Board review earlier in the process.
The ordinance establishes the role of the ARB at the initial site plan stage. Staff believes
that this change will reduce the number of site plan submissions the developer will have
to make and reduce the developers’ re-engineering and redesign costs. The role of the
ARB is discussed in more depth in Section B, below.
7. Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project
withdrawn.
Revisions to a site plan that are received long after staff comments have been made
requires considerable time for staff to refamiliarize themselves with the project. In
addition, the project may need to essentially be re-reviewed in order to ensure that no
regulatory changes have occurred since the comments were provided. Only a minimal fee
is required for re-activating a project. The ordinance provides the failure of a developer to
submit a revised site plan in response to staff comments within 6 months after the
comments are provided will cause the initial site plan to be deemed withdrawn. This
change will allow staff to be more efficient in reviewing projects.
8. Improve organization to make regulations easier for staff to administer and the
development community and public to understand and follow.
This is the first significant reorganization of the site plan regulations since they were
adopted in 1980. Although the regulations’ organization has never been ideal, piecemeal
amendments over the years have resulted in a body of regulations that are awkward and
disjointed. This ordinance reorganizes the regulations in a more logical manner and uses
consistent terminology. This reorganization should make the site plan regulations easier
for staff to administer and for the development community and the public to understand
and follow.
9. Use language similar to that used in the Subdivision Ordinance.
The state enabling authority for site plans is, for the most part, identical to the state
enabling authority for subdivision plats. Thus, the ordinance incorporates the provisions
required to be included in the County’s site plan regulations under the State Subdivision
Law using, where appropriate, the language already within the County’s Subdivision
Ordinance. As with improving the organization of the site plan regulations, enhancing the
commonality between the site plan regulations and the Subdivision Ordinance will make
the site plan regulations easier for staff to administer and for the development community
and the public to understand and follow.
10. Update the terminology and standards to be consistent with state enabling
authority.
The ordinance will update the terminology and standards to ensure that the site plan
regulations are consistent with state enabling authority. For example, the current site plan
regulations allow the Planning Commission to grant modifications, waivers and
substitutions of certain provisions of the site plan regulations and establishes the
applicable standards. The ordinance will replace “modifications, waivers and
substitutions” with “variations” and “exceptions,” the terms used in the state enabling
authority, and incorporate the standards for variations and exceptions in the state
enabling authority. These changes are technical in nature and have no effect on how
applications have or will be processed, but they will facilitate administration of the site plan
regulations.
B. The Role of the ARB at the Initial Site Plan Stage
At the August 3, 2011 joint work session, the Board directed staff to proceed with a zoning text
amendment that would have the ARB review site plans within any entrance corridor overlay district
before preliminary (initial) site plan approval. As staff explained at the work session, this approach
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
would allow the ARB to have input early in the process on issues related to site layout. Addressing
these major site design issues early in the process would eliminate or significantly reduce the
developer’s costs to re-engineer and redesign a site at the final site plan stage.
The ARB is authorized to review site plans “to assure consistency with applicable design
guidelines.” (County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)). In order to make the finding of consistency, section 18-
30.6.4(c) authorizes the ARB to specify its requirements in order to satisfy these seven areas of
review: architectural features, the size and arrangement of structures, the location and
configuration of parking areas and landscaping, landscaping measures, the preservation of
existing vegetation and natural features, the appearance of signs, and fencing. The ARB is also
authorized “to impose conditions to assure development is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines.” (County Code § 18-30.6.4(d)) A site plan cannot be approved by the agent until the
ARB has issued a certificate of appropriateness. (County Code § 18-30.6.4(a)(2))
The proposed ordinance establishes the role of the ARB at the initial site plan stage, but does not
expand the ARB’s authority.
1. Review the initial site plan to identify requirements and recommendations. Initial
site plans for sites within an entrance corridor overlay district would be referred to the
ARB for review. The ARB would review the plan to consider issues related to site layout
such as the location, configuration, area and orientation of structures and the location and
configuration of parking areas. Because all of the information for this review would be
provided on the initial site plan, the developer would not need to submit any other
information. The ARB would not consider structure-specific issues at this stage of the
process. Upon completion of its review, the ARB would transmit its requirements and
recommendations in order to assure consistency with the applicable guidelines. A
developer dissatisfied with the requirements of the ARB could appeal the decision to the
Board of Supervisors. (County Code § 18-34.2.2(b))
2. Effect of satisfying the ARB’s requirements. An approved initial site plan incorporating
the ARB’s identified requirements would be deemed to be consistent with the design
guidelines on the issues the ARB considered. (County Code § 18-32.4.2.8(a)). When the
developer seeks a certificate of appropriateness at the final site plan stage, the site layout
issues considered by the ARB at the initial site plan stage would not be subject to further
consideration by the ARB, provided that the final site plan is consistent with the approved
initial site plan. (County Code § 18-32.4.3.3(b))
3. Flexibility at the final site plan stage at the developer’s option. There may be
reasons why, at the final site plan stage, the developer needs or desires to have the final
site plan vary from the approved initial site plan. The variation may cause the final site
plan to no longer incorporate the ARB’s site layout requirements. In that situation, the
ARB would consider the site layout issues, as well as the other issues it reviews under
section 30.6.4, during its review of the application for a certificate of appropriateness.
(County Code § 18-32.4.3.3(b))
4. Effect of the ARB’s recommendations. Recognizing the distinction between
requirements and recommendations, the failure of a final site plan to incorporate a
recommendation of the ARB made at the initial site plan stage could not be the basis to
deny a certificate of appropriateness. (County Code § 18-32.4.3.3(c))
The ARB held a work session with staff on June 18, 2012 to review the proposed ordinance and
the ARB’s role during the initial site plan stage as described in the first two bullets above. The
ARB supported the Ordinance’s proposed approach.
The specificity of the ARB’s role, combined with the resolution of the site layout issues by the ARB
at the initial site plan stage, should streamline the process, reduce developer costs, and increase
predictability in the outcomes.
C. Changes Recommended by the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission recommended four changes to the ordinance as follows:
1. Address bicycle paths separately from sidewalks and other pedestrian ways.
The ordinance was revised to move improvements pertaining to bicycle paths from
section 32.7.2.3, Sidewalks and pedestrian paths, to section 32.7.2.2, Streets and
travelways composing the internal road network
2. Ensure that the Ordinance allows for conditions being placed on grading permits
issued after approval of the initial site plan.
The ordinance was revised to clarify that, in conjunction with their review of the initial site
plan, members of the Site Review Committee and the ARB may recommend to the
program authority conditions to be imposed on the issuance of grading permits.
3. Clarify that a member of the Architectural Review Board’s (the “ARB”) staff will
serve on the Site Review Committee, not the ARB itself.
The ordinance was revised to add a planner to the Site Review Committee whose sole
role will be to evaluate the issues relevant to certificates of appropriateness that will be
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
considered by the ARB. This role is limited only to those site plans for sites within an
entrance corridor overlay district.
4. Address the ARB’s authority to require changes to the layout of the site.
The ordinance was revised to clarify the role of the ARB in its review of initial site plans.
This issue is addressed more thoroughly in the Section B, above.
D. Delayed Effective Date
Staff recommends that this ordinance have an effective date of January 1, 2013. The delayed
effective date will allow site plans currently under review to continue to be processed under the
current regulations, allow time for staff training on the new regulations, allow new checklists,
forms and letters, and online information to be developed, and allow time for staff to communicate
with the professionals in the development community to ensure that the new procedures are
understood. Preliminary and final site plans submitted before January 1, 2013 will be reviewed
under the current regulations and must be approved by April 1, 2013 or be subject to the new
regulations. A final site plan submitted after January 1, 2013 will be reviewed under the new
regulations, even if its related preliminary site plan was approved prior to January 1, 2013.
Staff does not anticipate that this ordinance will result in the need for additional staff or
funding.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A) after the public
hearing with an effective date of January 1, 2013.
_____
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects, said that this is the zoning text amendment for the site plan
process improvements. He said that the goals with this effort are to shorten the approval times, cost of
development review, maintain opportunities for public input, maintain quality, and avoid unnecessary and
burdensome regulations. Mr. Fritz stated that as part of trying to accomplish these tasks, staff held eight
different meetings – a joint Planning Commission, ARB and Board of Supervisors work session, two
Planning Commission work sessions, two ARB work sessions, two roundtables, and one Planning
Commission public hearing.
He reported that the direction the Board included having a pre-application submittal with a 10-day
review period to determine the main issues and require waivers that will also allow staff to identify any
information that needs to be submitted in order to process those waivers, and what process will be
followed. Mr. Fritz said that it reduces plan content to the minimum necessary for review, and the public is
notified at site review meetings and asked to attend. He said that it gives for the first time clear submittal
standards for the final site plan. Mr. Fritz explained that staff has a backlog of projects for which they
never received responses to comments, and this would establish that after six months of no
communication from an applicant, the project is deemed “withdrawn” although they can apply for an
extension. Mr. Fritz stated that it allows the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial plan
instead of having to get final site plan approval, and it is a purely administrative review not a Planning
Commission review – with the ARB involved in the initial review of the project.
Mr. Fritz said that they will have a voluntary pre-application process, and within ten days staff will
go through a checklist provided to the applicant with any major issues causing concern. He added that it
would also help them identify items that need to be submitted such as traffic studies, information on
easements, waivers or modifications, variances, etc.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be a separate fee for that step. Mr. Fritz responded that there
would be, but the pre-application fee would be reduced from the larger application fee when the process
moves forward. There is no punishment by doing that.
He said that grading permits could be issued upon approval of the initial plan prior to approval of
the final site plan, as long as items such as erosion and sediment control plans were included. Mr. Fritz
stated that currently it is not possible to get a grading permit until the final plan is signed, and this would
allow things that are not significant to the grading plan to be set aside and reviewed after the grading plan
is issued.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were protocols for what is significant and what is not. Mr. Fritz
responded that those would be identified during the review of the initial plan, and each site review
committee member could emphasize specific points to address.
Mr. Rooker said the concern is that you end up with sites that are graded that nothing moves
forward on. Mr. Fritz said it is a possibility that an applicant could grade the site and then never get the
final site plan approval. That can also happen right now where they get their final site plan approval, grade
the site, and then never pursue the final development of the property.
Mr. Snow stated that they would still have to have an erosion control plan to ensure that it is
seeded, and to ensure that the grading is being done properly with the right control measures in place.
Mr. Fritz added that they would have to put a bond in place to ensure stabilization should they stop the
project.
Mr. Rooker said that the downside is there may be more cases where sites are partially graded
but never go forward, but there are some positives to this is as well.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Snow noted that it could happen that way now.
Ms. Mallek responded that it would be much further down the road. Mr. Rooker said the applicant
would have invested much more in the project at that point.
Mr. Rooker said that where there is an application plan he can understand not running into this
problem, but asked what happens when there is grading that turns out not to be consistent with final site
plan approval. Mr. Fritz replied that if there are changes between the initial and final that result in the site
being different it could cause the project to have to go back through the review process just like today.
Mr. Mark Graham said that happens all the time currently, whereby applicants start a project and
then make revisions to it with changes.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is a lot more likely there would be changes between the initial and
final site plan than after someone does a final site plan.
Mr. Fritz said that staff does not typically see significant changes between a preliminary and final
site plan. He also said that staff sees the issuance of grading permits at the time of initial approval as
bringing the site plans more in line with other types of projects, and currently with a subdivision plat you
can start grading the roads once there is preliminary approval. He explained that with a planned
development approved with an application plan, you can grade as long as that grading is consistent with
the application plan. Staff is trying to make site plans more like planned developments and subdivisions.
He stated that the next major change is that it establishes clear submittal requirements and review
procedures for final site plans, a process that has always been a little bit disjointed and pretty complex for
people to understand. Mr. Fritz said that these modifications would make that system much improved for
everyone.
He pointed out that it significantly reduces the detail required for minor site plan amendments, and
the focus would be placed exclusively on where the area of the change is occurring instead of having to
show the entire site. Mr. Fritz noted that this would make it easier for applicants to prepare their site plan
amendments and easier for staff to approve site plan amendments – as well as reducing the possibility for
changes not to carry over between plan versions.
Mr. Fritz explained that the review process would be purely administrative, and there would be no
more Planning Commission review of site plans. He said that the only way they would review it is if the
project was denied or had conditions placed on it that the applicant found objectionable, at which time it
could be appealed. Mr. Fritz said that the ARB is involved earlier in the process, and that should avoid the
problems that arise whereby the preliminary gets approved and the first time the ARB comments is at the
final stage. He stated that the process establishes comments not responded to within six months as
deeming a project “withdrawn,” but there is an extension process at the applicant’s request.
Mr. Fritz commented that there is a general improvement in the organization of how the whole
ordinance is laid out, and it makes it much easier to follow. He said that it also uses language similar to
that used in the subdivision ordinance and updates the terminology and standards to be consistent with
the State-enabling authority. Mr. Fritz stated that there have been a lot of changes to State Code, and the
site plan provisions have not really undergone any significant alterations in quite a long time. Staff have
cobbled things together, but there has been no comprehensive rewrite of the provisions of Section 32 that
really brings it all in line with the State Code which has actually gone on for 20+ years. This re-codifies it,
brings it in line, and makes it easier to read. He added that it is a technical change, not a substantive one.
In terms of the Architectural Review Board, Mr. Fritz explained that the process does not change
the ARB’s authority, and there is no alteration of what they can do – but this brings them into the review
process earlier, trying to minimize conflicts that now occur at the end. He said that under the new
process, the ARB would review the plan to consider issues related to site layout such as location,
configuration, area and orientation of structures, and the location and configuration of parking spaces. Mr.
Fritz said the ARB would not be considering structure-specific issues at the initial stage, such as the
window treatments, color of building, roofline, and other elements.
Mr. Rooker asked if the full ARB would consider the application at the early point, or just a
member of staff sitting on a site review committee.
Mr. Fritz read an email that was sent attempting to address that issue: “A new site plan review
process is proposed and incorporates the ARB review earlier in the process than is currently required.
The first step of the process is the initial site plan. The ARB review of the initial site plan as we have
discussed is: design planner reviews initial plan and sends comments to the ARB; ARB has opportunity to
make additional, alternate comments; design planner updates comments with ARB additions, alterations;
comments are sent to lead planner for site review meeting. The scope of the initial review is limited to
three areas: 1) the location, configuration, area and orientation of structures under Section 30.6.4.(c)(2);
2) the location and configuration of parking areas and location of landscaped areas under Section
30.6.4.(c)(3); and 3) to identify the existing trees, wooded areas and natural features that should be
preserved under Section 30.6.4.(c)(5).” He clarified that it would be a staff review, and at their last work
session the ARB determined that the design planner would provide comments to them – and they in turn
can provide information back to the design planner.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that “they won’t be together to hear and discuss this,” which is very
different when it comes to people’s understanding. She stated that she is very concerned about this.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Snow said that his concern is that it becomes a moving target, with some staff members
saying they like certain aspects of a plan and others deciding later that they don’t. He asked what
safeguards are in place when the applicant thinks he has fulfilled the requirements, and then all of a
sudden the target is moved.
Ms. Mallek said that is resolved by the fact they are not really allowed to look back at it, which is
another concern.
Mr. Thomas expressed concern about Section 32.4.2.2 and asked why the ARB needed to be
included from that point anyway.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, explained that the ordinance has evolved over the
months, and the design reviewers’ role, as Mr. Fritz described, is correct – but the ARB itself would be
taking the action that identifies the requirements.
Ms. Mallek said the ARB is being knocked out of four of the seven review parameters.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the reason their role at the initial site plan stage is limited is because
staff wanted the ARB to jump in at that stage to deal with the “big picture issues,” the general site plan
issues, because that kind of information is provided on the initial site plan – and at that stage the applicant
does not need to submit any other information. He said that the general requirements for the contents of
the site plan provide the ARB and the design planner all of the information they need to deal with the
major site layout issues, and the more detailed information comes after the initial site plan. Mr. Kamptner
said at that point the developer fully engages in the application for the certificate of appropriateness, and
under the ARB’s regulations there are submittal requirem ents at that stage that will require the developer
to provide information that deals with landscaping-specific issues and building-specific issues such as
window treatments, roof lines, and architectural styles.
Mr. Kamptner said staff wanted the ARB only to do the big things early, and part of the reason for
that is staff identified that there are redesign and re-engineering costs that developers are experiencing
under the current process. The major site issues come to the ARB after the initial site plan has been
approved.
Ms. Mallek stated that she understood that, but one of the things this proposal does not allow the
ARB to address in phase one is the size of a building. The impact to the corridor from buildings can be
very different in terms of the amount of screening needed – and yet they are being required to make a
decision on location, parking and natural features without having the ability to know what it is going to be.
Mr. Rooker said the scope of the review of the ARB is stated to be to consider “the location,
configuration, area and orientation of structures.” He stated that the ARB already has that authority and
the question is when they exercise it, adding that it is better for the applicant to provide that input early
rather than late. Mr. Rooker said that his concern is similar to Ms. Mallek’s with the language stating,
“neither the mass, shape, bulk and height of structures…nor the specific types of landscaping shall be
considered by the Board.” He asked how they could consider the location, configuration, area and
orientation of structures without considering the mass, shape and bulk of them.
Mr. Fritz emphasized that the ARB would know the size of the building because the site plan
requires that the location footprint be shown on the site plan, and that the maximum height be shown on
the initial site plan.
Mr. Rooker asked why it was being excluded here then. Mr. Fritz responded that during the initial
phase they would have the opportunity to look at the location of the structure, and during the final they
would be dealing with the treatment of that building and its architectural style.
Mr. Rooker reiterated his concerns about not considering mass and shape when considering
configuration, area and orientation of structures.
Mr. Boyd said in the case of the Wegman’s shopping center, the applicant has gone back and
requested site plan changes – because when developing a center like that you do not know who your
tenants are going to be, and thus you do not know the size, shape, or orientation of the building. He
stated that the Planning Commission and ARB are not elected bodies and are not the final decision
makers, so their opinions about color, design, landscaping, etc. require another process for the applicant
to have to come back to the Board and appeal. He said that he would like to see that get all done up front
so that when it comes to this Board, the Board makes the final decision. The Board listens to the
applicants’ opinions, listens to the public opinions, and then makes a decision – and after that move
forward.
Mr. Rooker said the change for Wegman’s was a zoning change, not a site plan change. There
was an approved application plan for that project and the applicant needed a zoning change.
Mr. Davis clarified that whatever is delegated pursuant to the law, and consistent with the Sinclair
case, are ministerial decisions that can be delegated to the staff and/or the ARB. He said that the ARB is
a decision maker in these types of processes, although they are subject to an appeal if the applicant
appeals the ministerial decision of staff or the ARB.
Mr. Rooker said if you want to increase the cost of applications, start having all of the decisions go
through the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Boyd said he do not want them to go through the Commission and ARB more than once.
Mr. Rooker stated that the goal here is to involve the ARB earlier in the process, and the scope of
their authority has not changed under this proposal. He emphasized that the recommendation from staff
is to make this process less onerous for the applicants by allowing them to get the feedback from the ARB
on things such as location, configuration, etc. at the initial site plan application stage instead of late in the
process when bringing a site plan forward.
Mr. Snow said that his understanding is that once the decision is made by staff that the buildings
are correct and properly oriented, then the ARB addresses the window treatments and signage later.
Mr. Davis pointed out that it is not just a staff person’s decision; it is subject to a decision by the
ARB. He said the staff person would be involved in the site plan review meeting, but that recommendation
and comments would go to the ARB – which would meet as a body and decide on whether they approve
of the location, configuration, area and orientation of structures in the initial plan.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek said that needs to be spelled out in the ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said it wasn’t clear to him whether the ARB as a whole would still be making the same
decisions it makes now, or whether it would be a staff person.
Mr. Davis pointed out that under Section 32.4.2.2.(b)(1), it states: “The Architectural Review
Board shall review the plan for consistency with the design guidelines. The scope of the Board shall be to
consider the location, configuration, area and orientation.”
Ms. Mallek said the Planning Commission changed it verbally to say “one ARB person and staff.”
Mr. Davis emphasized that it is not in the ordinance and the ARB cannot act except as a body.
Mr. Kamptner stated that staff realized that the ARB needs to take the action, and the effect of
their decision is that it puts the issues of area, orientation and location aside. He said that if the initial site
plan is approved and the final site plan comes in and is consistent, the decision on those particular ARB-
related issues that are now off the table. The developer can now be confident that when it comes before
the ARB for a certificate of appropriateness that those issues are resolved, and so the risk of redesign and
re-engineering those big site layout issues [is] no longer in play.
Ms. Mallek said she is fine with that as long as there was a proper decision at the first phase, and
it would make a lot more sense to have a phase one certificate and then a phase two, so it is clear there
will be some definitive action. She added that there is also confusion between the language of
“recommendations” and “requirements,” as well as “ARB” and “staff” as the words for both seems to be
interchangeable. In addition there is nothing in the proposed ordinance regarding the ARB’s current
authority where there has to be agreement in the first phase before the final site plan can be done.
Mr. Kamptner stated that in Section 32.4.2.2.(b)(3), the heading is “Transmittal of Requirements
and Recommendations,” and that subsection directs that the ARB is to send its requirements – the site
layout issues that need to be addressed in order to satisfy the design guidelines – to the agent, and are
imposed as part of the agent’s review and conditional approval of the initial site plan. He said that the
ARB can also present the agent with recommendations, but their requirements are stipulated by enabling
regulations and design guidelines – and they must determine what has to be satisfied in order to find
consistency therein. Mr. Kamptner added that the decision of the ARB can be appealed to the Board of
Supervisors, just as developers have under current procedures.
Mr. Rooker said it is important to clarify that the ARB must act as a full body.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the requirements have to be incorporated into the initial plan, and then
at the final site plan stage the ARB still has to issue a certificate of appropriateness. He said that the only
things that are off the table at the final approval of the certificate of appropriateness are those items
related to location, configuration, area and orientation. Mr. Davis stated that in the final certificate of
appropriateness decision, they look at mass, shape, bulk, height of structures , etc. It does differentiate at
what point in the process they take those under consideration.
Mr. Rooker noted that it helps that the applicant can see the ARB’s recommendations early in the
process. He added that he thinks that is a good idea.
Mr. Snow said that this would save significantly on the applicant’s expenses. He thinks it could
help expedite the process and make it less expensive to get the project started.
Ms. Mallek said she supports that but does not want to subtly or accidently dilute an important part
of the process with the ARB.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Morgan Butler had sent out some comments, but they seemed to be
comments for clarification rather than substantive changes. Mr. Rooker said he supports those
clarifications. For example, under the definition for “requirements”, Mr. Butler clarifies that it is “special
use permits and conditions thereof”. Mr. Butler also added the language: “The term shall also include all
changes to initial site plans required by the site review committee or by the architectural review board
pursuant to sections 32.3.2 and 32.4.2.2.” Mr. Rooker said it makes sense to include those requirements
for clarification purposes.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like for Mr. Kamptner to review those comments.
Mr. Kamptner said that he and Mr. Fritz had discussed the comments and agreed on most points.
Mr. Kamptner said that in the definition section, regarding Mr. Butler’s suggestion that special use
permits include the reference to “and conditions,” conditions are part in parcel of the special use permit
and thus did not need to be expressly spelled out there. He said that in the initial site plan submittal
requirements, staff does require the initial site plan to not only list the special use permits but any
conditions – and that is a direction to the developer that they need to identify the special permit but also to
provide the conditions on the site plan.
Ms. Mallek said it seems harmless to include that language.
Mr. Kamptner said that regarding Mr. Butler’s suggestion to add the sentence to the end of the
definition of “requirements,” he and Mr. Fritz felt the regulations already require the site review committee
and ARB to identify the requirements and transmit them to the agent, who then informs the developer
what is required. He stated that in this way, the communication from the site review committee and the
ARB is to the agent, and the agent directly communicates the requirements in order for the
applicant/developer to obtain initial site plan approval. Mr. Kamptner said that staff does not feel that
needs to be in there, and there is additional concern that the language could be construed to expand the
meaning of “requirements” to beyond the applicable regulations. He stated that because these are
ministerial acts, whatever they are requiring must be in the regulations. Staff does not think it is
necessary, and thinks it could be interpreted in a way to expand or confuse the definition of “requirement.”
Mr. Rooker said he does not know that it hurts to point out that the “conditions” are also
requirements. It seems that this would help a lay person to understand it.
Mr. Kamptner said that as far as Mr. Butler’s comment regarding proposed additional language to
Section 32.4.2.2(a) pertaining to changes to the initial site plan, staff found the language to be redundant
since the site plan must satisfy all of the requirements – and that is also addressed in Section 32.4.2.5,
which allows the agent to approve the initial site plan only if the applicant has satisfied all of the
requirements.
He said that regarding Mr. Butler’s suggestion about (b)(1) of that same section for “should” to be
changed to “must,” staff felt that “should” was acceptable because this subsection was merely describing
the ARB’s scope of review. The ARB will need to determine whether something is to be required in order
to satisfy the regulations under subsection (b)(3).
Mr. Kamptner said they have already addressed his comments regarding “mass, shape, bulk,
height.”
Mr. Rooker stated that his question on that was really never answered, and this was a practical
question for the ARB – “How do you consider area and orientation, configuration, et cetera, without
considering at all the mass, shape and bulk?”
Mr. Fritz clarified that the area is the place on the land, and the location is the orientation.
Mr. Rooker said as long as that is clear to the ARB that is fine, but it is not clear to him as he
reads the language now.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is very important to be consistent from project to project, and that
there is perception from the community that it is being done all the time.
Mr. Rooker said that he wants someone like Ms. Margaret Maliszewski who works on these things
regularly to state that they understand what the ARB would be considering in step one and step two.
Mr. Thomas said that the words “location, configuration, area and orientation” make sense to him.
Mr. Rooker agreed, but questioned how they would all be considered without considering the
mass, shape and bulk. He said that part of this is the term “area,” and whether it refers to the area
occupied by the building or the area it is located in – and if it is the latter, he could understand where mass
is something different.
Mr. Davis stated that this is an important issue, and staff should provide some examples of what
that means so that everyone is comfortable with the distinctions.
Ms. Mallek commented that in addition to the images, there needs to be something written down
so that this issue does not have to be rehashed in the future.
Mr. Boyd commented that the Board’s discussion has jumped ahead of the public hearing.
Mr. Kamptner said that Ms. Maliszewski said the language was fine but did not elaborate on the
particulars that are of concern to the Board.
Mr. Snow asked if Ms. Maliszewski could provide some input after they get through the public
hearing portion.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Foley responded that staff could try to provide Ms. Maliszewski with their concerns so that she
could comment.
Mr. Kamptner said that in subsection (b)(2), Mr. Butler had suggested adding some language, but
staff felt that the other information required to be submitted with an initial site plan as set forth in sections
32.5.3.5.4 and 32.5.3.5.5 are not germane to the ARB’s review. He added that it is really the initial site
plan drawing itself and the related information that is required under Section 32.5.2 – the initial site plan –
that contains all of the information necessary for the ARB’s review at that stage. One of staff’s goals was
to not require the developer to have to submit any additional information related to the ARB’s review.
He said that in subsection (b)(3), the additional language of having the authority require changes
to the initial site plan is not necessary because the ARB transmits their identified requirements to the
agent – and the agent is the one who acts with the developer.
Mr. Rooker said the suggested language is: “The architectural review board’s review shall be
based on the initial site plan and the developer shall not be required to submit any other information not
required to be submitted with the initial site plan.” In his opinion what is being suggested to add there is
an important point of clarification, and asked if the initial site plan by definition includes everything in the
package that is required to be submitted to make an application.
Mr. Kamptner responded that it is all part of the application.
Mr. Rooker said they are talking about the initial site plan, not the application, in terms of this
submittal requirement. It does not make sense to him when he reads that language in isolation because it
means that the developer is not required to submit anything other than his initial site plan.
Mr. Boyd stated that developers do not know when they are going in to the initial site plan exactly
what kind of tenants they are going to have. The goal here is to be able to get conceptual designs without
having to come up with a code of development. The Board has seen project after project that comes in
with a code of development that so locks them in that the Board has to go back with zoning changes
because tenant A wants something different than what they thought they might be able to get for that
particular thing.
Mr. Rooker said that was not his point, and what he is talking about is not a substantive change as
it does not require anything additional from a developer. This is just a point of reference to what the
Architectural Review Board’s review is based on. He said that by adding, “not required to be submitted
with the initial site plan,” it is making it clear that the developer has to submit what is required with the
initial site plan – and that they can base their decision on those submissions. He does not think the initial
site plan includes the application by definition.
Mr. Kamptner said that clause can be changed.
Mr. Boyd stated that it is different depending on the application.
Mr. Rooker said he is not talking about that. He thinks this language needs to be included that
they are not somehow undercutting the requirements of the application process.
Mr. Davis responded that staff is fine with that, and what they were trying to accomplish here is to
solidify that this was not an opportunity for requirements beyond what was stipulated in the initial
application plan to be brought into the process at that time. At that point it is premature to consider
extraneous factors, but clearly they did want all information that was required as part of the application
plan to be available and to be considered by the ARB.
Mr. Rooker said it may be redundant, but it also adds clarification.
Mr. Davis and Mr. Fritz said it was acceptable to include it.
Mr. Kamptner said that with subsection (b)(3) staff had a similar comment to Mr. Butler’s
recommendation regarding the added language at the end. He said that the process already provides for
the ARB to transmit the information to the agent.
Mr. Rooker asked where that was required now.
Mr. Davis responded that it was found in 32.4.2.2.D(3), on page 42 at the top.
Mr. Kamptner said that in Section 32.4.2.5.C, the proposed additional language is redundant
because the same subject matter is covered immediately in the line above, which provides for those
conditions which must be satisfied prior to approval of the final site plan.
Ms. Mallek said that she does not have enough understanding of the consequences of the early
grading permit to feel comfortable with it unless the same process is going to be followed through before
the grading permit is issued.
Mr. Rooker stated that the language in “C” deals with the initial site plan requirements, and the
language added deals with the issuance of a grading permit – and he understood those to be two different
things.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Mr. Kamptner explained that the site review committee and the ARB would be providing
recommended conditions to the agent, which will be forwarded to the Program Authority – and the
Program Authority is the County Engineer, who issues the grading permits.
Mr. Rooker asked if he is saying there should not be a reference to grading permits here, and if
so, where is the authority to issue conditions.
Mr. Davis explained that that’s under the Water Protection Ordinance and is a separate process
from the site plan although they are sequenced. He said that it is in the ordinance that there will be
recommendations made to the County Engineer who will be issuing the permit and that he will consider
the recommendations being made by the site plan review committee and/or the ARB.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, added that within the Water Protection
Ordinance, there is a requirement for approval of a site plan prior to issuance of a grading permit, and that
is where the initial site plan becomes important. Without approval of that initial site plan, he said, staff
cannot issue a grading permit. He also noted that with the initial site plan, it could be “conditionally
approved,” and the ARB may come back and say there is not enough detail for them to determine whether
an early grading plan will protect natural features – and request that a grading permit not be issued prior to
approval of the final site plan.
Ms. Mallek asked if that could happen. Mr. Graham responded that it could very easily happen,
as it could be a condition of the ARB’s approval of the initial site plan – that no grading permit will be
issued prior to the final site plan.
Mr. Graham then apologized for the complexity of the ordinance, and explained that this dates
back to the original economic vitality roundtables. One of the things staff clearly heard from the
development community is the need to be able to create early grading permits to be able to create pad-
ready sites, to be what they felt was competitive with other markets. He added that as part of doing an
early grading permit, staff recognized that if it did not bring the ARB into the process early, they would
effectively be eliminating them from consideration of important issues – which is clearly undermining some
of their authority. Mr. Graham said that the choice with having early grading permits is to get the ARB into
the process, but if you do not you can hold off to a final site plan.
Mr. Rooker said this really goes to what is in the letter, and if it wouldn’t be the case that they
would inform the applicant of the conditions that would exist in connection with a grading permit issuance,
then it could be left out. His question then would be when the applicant is informed of what those
conditions are, if not in this letter.
Mr. Fritz replied that it would go out in that letter, and the agent’s action based on the comments
from the site review committee would include any conditions that would be required for either issuance of
an early grading permit and what is required for the final site plan submittal.
Mr. Rooker commented that this would be for the applicant’s benefit. There are also some
conditions that apply to the issuance of the grading permit that are not in the letter, and he thinks that both
should be in the letter.
Mr. Thomas asked about the role of the site review committee, and whether they could authorize
early grading.
Mr. Fritz explained that they are not unilaterally authorizing it, but are saying what needs to be
done in order for early grading to occur – and the simplest would be an erosion and sediment control plan,
with the most complicated being not granting the grading permit until final site plan approval. He said that
the latter is what is in place today, and it would become the worst case scenario.
Mr. Rooker said if he were an applicant, he would want a letter explaining what the requirements
were.
Mr. Thomas said that made sense, but he is trying to save time.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is already a well-defined protocol, so staff isn’t in the position of who
gets to go fast and who takes longer. She said that flexibility could mean future headaches for the staff,
along with bad perception from the public.
Mr. Fritz responded that staff is asking for delayed implementation so they can develop those
protocols, but based on what they have historically been doing with site review meetings, they are pretty
certain most plans could get a grading permit. He said that it is pretty obvious which are which, but the
difficulty with writing parameters is that every site is unique. Most sites are going to qualify for an early
grading permit in our opinion.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the comments on Section 32.4.2.8 suggest three proposals, with the first
two related to excluding the RA district from the early grading permit – and he and Mr. Fritz feel that if an
initial site plan has been approved, regardless of the zoning district, it is slated for development. He said
that staff does not recommend excluding the RA district.
Mr. Fritz said that staff saw no distinction between a rural area site plan and development area
site plan. The only way a site plan would have been approved is if the proposed use has already been
approved by right, by special permit or another action. It has already been decided that the property is
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
going to be developed, so staff does not see why the County would penalize rural area and treat them any
different than it would development area. He emphasized that the decision to preserve a particular
property in the rural areas is made at a zoning stage, not at a site plan stage.
Mr. Kamptner said that the last comment in that subsection was similar to the one previously
discussed about adding the language with reference to the grading permit. He stated that the comment
regarding subsection “C” would have the same solution in terms of adding language for clarification.
Mr. Fritz reported that the idea behind the effect of satisfying the ARB’s requirements is that once
a decision is made, the applicant can rely on it and move forward; although there is some flexibility and if
the applicant decides they want to change it they have the opportunity to do so. He said that the ARB’s
recommendations would be just like any other recommendation, but would not be considered a factor in
the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness later. They either meet the requirements of the ordinance
or they do not. Mr. Fritz added that they may have to do different treatments to the architecture of the
structure to address concerns, so they are given the information up front so they know what the
recommendation is and can adjust accordingly.
Mr. Fritz noted that the Planning Commission made some recommendations to amend the
ordinance, and staff has incorporated those – treating bicycle paths differently than sidewalks; allowing for
conditions to be placed on the grading permit; and changing the ARB’s authority.
He said that staff is asking for the Board to approve this, but delay the effective date, adding that
this would allow current projects to continue on and be completed in a “known process” – as well as
allowing staff to prepare all of the letters and checklists previously discussed and conduct training for staff
and constituents. Mr. Fritz stated that staff is recommending that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance
with an effective date of January 1, 2013.
Mr. Snow asked how much time will be saved by implementing the new procedures versus what is
being done now.
Mr. Fritz responded that staff has been hesitant to include specific timeliness because they do not
know what the Board is going to do, or how it wanted staff to proceed. By County ordinance and State
Code, he said, staff has 60 days to process an application, but it does believe it will reduce the application
time period.
Mr. Snow commented that he thinks it will help significantly reduce the cost of these projects also.
Mr. Fritz said that staff feels there will be savings in staff time and in the applicant’s cost to
prepare a project, because the initial submittal will go to site review committee members and will be
reviewed – and at that point it will be either approved or denied. He explained that the current process is it
goes to the site review committee, then revisions are done and then reviewed again before an action is
taken. Staff would be cutting out one round of review by going to this process, and they think that will be a
staff-savings and, also a reduction in the work that the applicant needs to submit.
Mr. Rooker stated that site plans would not be called up at the Commission level, which is a
significant time saver. He added that it is an administrative function, not a discretionary function, and the
public often gets the impression that the Commission can stop a project at the site plan point but they
really cannot. It is a tremendous savings for applicants to eliminate site plans going to the Commission.
Mr. Rooker said that by having the ARB weigh in earlier in the process, they will avoid having cases where
something gets to the point of certificate of appropriateness and they haven’t looked at it – but suddenly
they want to make changes that would affect the initial site plan had they weighed in at that point, given
the chance.
Mr. Fritz mentioned that when items come in with a site plan number, waivers and modifications –
such as waivers of parking standards – still fall under the normal Board process until there is a new
approach developed.
Mr. Thomas commented that the time saved by bypassing the Commission would be taken up by
the ARB having an opportunity to review the final site plan. Mr. Fritz responded that staff does not feel it
would, because staff has not increased nor decreased the ARB’s authority – they have simply changed
when it is exercised.
Ms. Mallek said she hopes there would be an attitude on the part of the applicants that they now
know what the requirements are, and if they are going to do the project they just step up and do it – rather
than having everything be a negotiation and an attempt to get around requirements.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, addressed the Board, stating that he has
attended all eight of the work sessions, roundtables and discussions. When this first came up he raised
concerns about a “super ARB” looking at initial site plans. Mr. Williamson said his concerns were
alleviated when it was said to be a staff person moving forward and not the ARB – and they actually said
that in their meeting. He stated that he understood the legal reasons behind this, but he is confused as to
whether the ARB meetings will be open and public since they are required to take action as a body. Mr.
Williamson asked if the meeting would have to be advertised, and how it fits into the 60-day state
mandate. He said that he was very concerned about the ARB being in the position that it is in, and not
having sunlight – which is the best disinfectant – for everyone to see what is going on.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Williamson stated that the vast majority of the ordinance is really helpful, and he thinks the
intent of having the ARB in the front end of this is good – but the implementation is problematic, and he is
asking to have the ARB removed from this entirely. He said that there could be an ARB staff member on
the review committee, and they would be allowed to voice the policy of the ARB without hidden email
meetings or a delay in the 60-day process. All of a sudden the ARB is becoming the super-ARB that he
warned about over a year ago. Mr. Williamson thanked the Board for their positive and good discussion of
this issue.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board and thanked them for their thorough discussion of the
issues, adding that the success of development projects is often affected by whether they can navigate
through the site plan and ARB processes in a reasonable amount of time. She said that she has seen too
many projects get mired down in those delays, and she commended the Board for issuing this directive to
staff and staff for working diligently with the development communities to help improve the process. Ms.
Long said that the intent is incredibly worthwhile, but like Mr. Williamson she has concerns about how it
will be implemented. She suggested that the Board consider a commitment to “check in” with the
development community at six months and one year after implementation of the ordinance, to see how it
is going and see if any of the fears expressed have materialized – and if they have, fixing the process.
Ms. Long said that she is concerned about how to fit a round of ARB reviews and site plan committee into
60 days, but she does not want those concerns to overshadow the many positive benefits of the
ordinance. She added that the ARB has so much discretion right now, even with by-right projects – and
that discretion could completely undermine the legality of a by-right project.
Ms. Mallek asked her to clarify what she means by undermining the legality of a by-right project.
Ms. Long explained that an example would be a case in which a building has been permitted without
limitation under the underlying zoning and the approved zoning application plan and the ARB recommends
a smaller size so it fits in better with the Entrance Corridor.
Ms. Mallek asked for a specific instance in which this has occurred. Ms. Long replied that there
have been issues where the ARB has, with by-right projects, objected to the size and scale of buildings.
Mr. Rooker said that does not change with this ordinance, because the ARB’s authority is not
being changed. The issues they are allowed to consider in issuing a certificate of appropriateness are not
changing; the only change here is that certain of those issues they will look at earlier, rather than later.
Ms. Long stated that by bringing the ARB’s role to the forefront, that enhances their authority in a
significant way. It takes a by-right project, and all of the sudden there is so much more discretion involved
on the front end, not just the back end.
Mr. Rooker said it is the same discretion, and it seems Ms. Long is implying that because it is at
the front end it has some additional weigh.
Ms. Long responded that it absolutely does, especially if you are a landowner trying to get a
project done and bring a prospective business to the community. She said that she has had plenty of
clients walk away in those situations if they perceive the project is going to be a challenge because of the
ARB’s review. Ms. Long added that the discretion of the ARB has evolved over the last few years, and it is
now much broader than just reviewing the architectural design of a building and the colors. It is almost
more that they’re part of the site plan review board, and this moves that even more in that direction.
Mr. Foley noted that it also allows an early grading permit.
Ms. Long said that if the ARB has that much discretion, it might undermine the benefit of getting
an early grading plan.
Ms. Mallek said once the protocols are laid out, it will be a lot better.
Mr. Rooker asked who has the authority to issue the grading plan. Mr. Fritz responded that it
would be the Program Authority, and Ms. Mallek said it would be someone like Glenn Brooks.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the ARB does not have the authority to issue or not issue a grading
permit.
Ms. Long said the ARB might decide they don’t have information to support an early grading plan
and thus could add as a condition of approval of the preliminary site plan that no grading permit be
issued.
Mr. Fritz said the site review committee could do that.
Mr. Rooker said that the site review committee could do that under today’s policy.
Ms. Long stated that it could take some time for everything to work out, and the intentions are
good, but it is important to revisit the ordinance in six and twelve months.
Mr. Rooker said that this intends to make the process more efficient while retaining characteristics
to have quality projects in the community.
Ms. Long commented that that is a very tough balance.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Boyd commented that he is concerned that the ARB has that much discretionary power, and
perhaps the Board needs to revisit their purview.
Mr. Thomas agreed.
Dr. Charles Battig said that he empathizes with the Board members regarding their confusion over
the terms “area” and “location,” adding that area is usually associated with square footage. He suggested
that the word location could be used instead, and the language needs to be cleaned up.
Mr. Thomas asked if the word “location” made it more specific, and “area” referred to general area
of where it is going to be.
Mr. Fritz stated that “area” refers to square footage and would show the location and footprint, so
you would know where it is, its orientation, its size, and its maximum height.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said there are two different things going on. Mr. Fritz was referring to the information
available – but this section of the ordinance talks about what the ARB can consider in its first round of
comments on a project. He said that in one place it says they “shall consider the area,” but in another
place it says they “cannot consider the mass.” Mr. Rooker stated that he would have difficulty if he were
on the ARB to distinguish between those two things.
Ms. Mallek asked if all of these terms are in the definitions.
Mr. Davis stated that area is not a defined term, and he thinks staff needs to do some more work
on this to dispel any ambiguity.
Mr. Rooker commented that staff did a terrific job with this ordinance, but he agrees there needs
to be clarification on a few terms.
Ms. Mallek agreed.
Mr. Foley said that staff understands the need to work on the language.
Mr. Snow asked if the Board needed to move for deferral.
Mr. Davis said that staff needs to bring it back, but the question is whether staff needs more than
a day – and it could be brought back to the day meeting in October. It is not going to affect the
implementation schedule.
Mr. Boyd then moved to defer consideration of ZTA-2012-0009 to October 3, 2012. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dumler.
_______________
(At 12:05 p.m., the Board took a brief recess, and reconvened at 12:13 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Regional Legislative Program, David Blount.
Mr. Blount summarized the following first draft of the 2013 Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Legislative Program:
Thomas Jefferson Planning District
2012 Legislative Priorities
(Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson & Charlottesville City)
SECONDARY ROAD DEVOLUTION
We are strongly opposed to any legislation or regulations that would transfer responsibility to counties
for construction, maintenance or operation of current or new secondary roads.
STATE/LOCAL FUNDING and REVENUES
The state should honor its funding obligations to localities and resist cost-shifting to localities.
Facing continuing budget woes and funding cuts to localities, the state should relax state
requirements or provide flexibility for meeting requirements, and not further restrict local revenue
authority.
The state and localities should examine contractual relationships for services required by the state.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
The state should fully fund its share of realistic costs of the Standards of Quality (SOQ) without
making formula changes that shift the funding burden to localities.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL
The state and federal governments must provide major and reliable forms of financial and technical
assistance for comprehensive water quality improvement strategies.
We urge fairness in applying requirements for reductions in nutrient and sediment loading across
source sectors, and accompanying authority and incentives for all sectors to meet such requirements.
We will oppose actions that impose monitoring, management or similar requirements on localities
without providing sufficient resources. Any expansion of the Nutrient Exchange Program should be
contained within and be relevant to a particular watershed.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
We request separate and dedicated state revenues for all transportation modes.
The state should restore formula allocations for secondary/urban construction and provide stable and
increasing dollars for cities and towns to maintain roads within their boundaries.
LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT
We request additional tools to manage growth without preempting or circumventing existing local
authorities in this area.
We support making the use of urban development areas optional for localities.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
We urge a better partnership between the state and localities in containing the costs of CSA, and in
balancing CSA responsibilities. We support additional state funding for administering CSA, as
localities foot the bill for most of these costs.
_____
Mr. Blount said that the above list of priority items were contained in the 2012 program along with
ongoing concerns. He reported that he would be meeting with the local governing bodies here in
September to get input and recommendations into the program, and would be drafting the program for
review in the beginning of October – with final approval slated for November.
Mr. Blount said that the Mayors and Chairs CEOs group, which is composed of the chief elected
and appointed officials from each of the local governing bodies in the region, has met twice recently and
the issue of mandates and cost-shifting has boiled to the top very quickly. He stated that there is a need
to educate the citizens about the actions that take place in Richmond that impact local governments. At
the legislative forum this fall they will try to focus education of legislators on unfunded mandates and cost-
shifting.
Mr. Blount noted that there is an existing priority position having to do with state budget and local
revenue authority that speaks to the state meeting its funding obligations. He thinks there is some
opportunity now to enhance and expand on that position.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board passed a resolution and said that they would want to follow the
specific wording in the resolution.
Mr. Blount agreed and said they would seek the restoration of those reductions.
Mr. Davis noted that it would need to be in the form of a budget amendment.
Mr. Blount explained that for the last few years there have been budget amendments submitted,
and in the current biennium there has been some pullback as to the “clawback” the state would get. He
said that there is a six-year financial forecast at the state level with the introduction of each biennial
budget, and by 2017-18 it indicates the program would be phased out by that time. Right now, he said
that he thinks it is the thing to try to do to make that happen.
Mr. Foley said that the resolution came from VACo, so the question is whether they are planning
to sponsor something.
Mr. Blount responded that VACo and VML had probably done this jointly, and are asking localities
to either write a letter and/or pass a resolution and send it to the Governor. He confirmed that they would
be preparing an amendment.
Ms. Mallek stated that the general feeling at the Mayors and Chairs meeting was that VACo has
been way too gentle with the legislature, and localities felt the need for a much stronger position. She also
said that Mr. Blount had provided examples from other counties around the state regarding changes they
had made in their tax rates to accommodate the devolution, and the Mayors and Chairs group is hoping to
have visual aids such as posters that enumerate those facts.
Mr. Blount said that the aid to localities item would show a $300+ million clawback by the time the
six-year period is done, but over the last three years state budget revenue surpluses have exceeded $600
million.
Mr. Rooker noted that the state ended the last fiscal year with an almost $1 billion surplus.
Mr. Blount reported that the top legislative priority last year pertained to state devolution of
secondary road responsibilities, which the General Assembly did not move forward. However, he said
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
it would remain an important issue and he might try to mesh that position in with the transportation funding
position – and there appears to be some pressure building to try to address that this year.
Mr. Blount mentioned that the TJPDC legislative forum is scheduled for Thursday, November 29,
2012, and would be an evening event, with a focus on educating legislators about the impacts of cost
shifting and unfunded/underfunded mandates.
He reported that he has worked with staff on legislative priorities, and he would incorporate the
new ones into the regional program.
Mr. Rooker commented that the problems of funding secondary roads are two-fold: maintenance,
which has been discussed as being put on localities; and the loss of secondary road construction funds,
which are funded by the state only from cell phone tower rental fees – going from $5.5 million per year to
$300,000 per year. He said that Fairfax went from $20 million a year down to $1 million, and everybody is
being hit. Mr. Rooker stated that this is being disguised somewhat because there is still a runoff of
secondary road projects that were previously funded, but those projects will be gone in a year, and there is
hardly a dime for secondary road projects throughout the state.
Mr. Blount said there is a statement in the current priority list, perhaps in the supporting text, and it
could be moved up in priority.
Mr. Snow pointed out that there is an MPO meeting on November 28th, and Mr. Blount said the
legislative forum was on the 29th.
Ms. Mallek commented that there was a change in discussion on the biosolids issue at VACo’s
Agricultural Committee meeting, and there will probably be many counties signing onto the small changes
still being sought.
Mr. Blount responded that there could be some more legislation than the one bill last year that
very quickly went away.
Ms. Mallek said that everyone wanted to give DEQ a chance to see what they could do.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Update, Gary O’Connell,
Executive Director.
Mr. O’Connell summarized the following highlights of current items for the ACSA which was
forwarded to the Board:
1. Conversion to Granular Activated Carbon- You probably learned a lot, and thought a lot
about the water quality issues of our public water supply given the recent debates; maybe
learning more about the complexity of water than you ever thought you needed to know.
Now that a decision has been made to go with Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) as part
of the water treatment process to help reduce disinfection by-products (DBP’s), the ACSA
will be doing its part to help implement this over the next several years. There are a
number of changes in our system that will need to be made as part of the larger
conversion to GAC, including new water quality testing requirements that go into effect on
October 1, 2012.
2. FY 2013 Budget and Water and Sewer Rates- The new budget and rates were adopted
by the ACSA Board that went into effect beginning on July 1, 2012. The average
residential rate increased 3.3%. This primarily was due to the major wastewater projects
at Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA). We have been planning for this rate
increase for several years, and the ACSA was able to hold down the rate increase from
being double digit to our customers as the RWSA wholesale rate increased 12%.
3. Environmental Management System- The ACSA was recently certified by the Virginia
Tech Environmental and Sustainability Management System institute after a detailed 1 ½
year process and audit. We also recently received the Large Business Champion award
sponsored by the Better Business Challenge, to promote sustainability initiatives in area
businesses. We are proud of these recognitions, which very much reflects the ACSA’s
vision to “Conserve today, sustain tomorrow, and protect water and environmental
resources forever.”
4. Strategic Plan- We are in the third and final year of our current Strategic Plan. These
items ranged from the ACSA financial position; rate structure; new technology; water leak
detection; sewer system improvements and evaluation that protects our streams and
rivers from sewer overflows; automated controls on our facilities; major capital projects;
water conservation initiatives; new Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) reduction program to
keep grease out of sewer lines; updating our Geographic Inform ation System (GIS) for
utility mapping and system engineering models; updating to our website; water audit; new
management systems and others. We will be updating the Strategic Plan this winter. We
would welcome any comments you would have on strategic areas you think we should be
addressing.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
5. Annual Water Quality Report- We annually send out a very detailed water quality report in
June of each year to each of our customers. We continue to have very good public water
in our community, and as we said in the report’s letter to our ACSA customers, “the
quality of your drinking water meets and exceeds all regulatory requirements.” There are
many employees at the ACSA and RWSA that work hard and are very committed to safe,
high quality drinking water. This report is on our website, or if you haven’t seen, we’re
glad to provide you with one.
6. Customer Newsletter- Our summer edition of the customer newsletter is attached that is
sent twice a year to our 17,000 customers.
7. North Fork Regional Sewer- We are nearing completion of this $10 million project, the
largest one the ACSA has undertaken. This includes a new sewer line and two new
pump stations, one of which replaces the obsolete Camelot Treatment Plant. A final short
section of sewer line across the Rivanna River should be completed by the end of the
year. This will provide new sewer capacity in this area that has not been available in the
past. This project is being paid back by a Special Rate District, a fee on all future
development in the area. This area covers both sides of the Route 29 corridor from
Proffit Road/Airport Road to the Boulder’s Road, and Briarwood areas. A Public Hearing
on the final Special Rate District rates will be held on October 18, 2012. Approximately
600 properties in this area would be served by this new sewer line/pump stations.
8. Capital Project Updates-
West Leigh Water Line Replacement- completed
Berwick Road Water Line Replacement- completed
Western Ridge-Foxchase Water Line Connection- in design
Scottsville Streetscapes Water Improvements- under contract through VDOT; line
upgrades
Key West Water Line Replacement- in design
St. George Avenue/ Buck Road Water Line Replacement- ready to be bid next
week
Ashcroft Water Line Replacement/ New Pump Station- final design; nearing
bidding
Crozet Water Line Replacements (Tabor, Hilltop Streets)- final design
Hardware Street Water Main Extension- new Scottsville line to connect downtown
to the tank (second feed); under contract
Buckingham Circle Water Main Replacement- under contract
Woodbrook Sewer System Improvements- system testing to determine the extent
of rehabilitation that is needed
Oak Hill New Sewer- sewer work completed; fall landscaping to complete the
project
Hollymeade Water Line Replacements- completed Redwing; next street in this
phased replacement is Robin Lane.
In terms of the Special Rate District, Mr. Boyd asked if it only applied to the new development.
Mr. O’Connell said that it only applied to the new development, and said they had received a few calls
from residents about it. He clarified that it would only apply to increased density on property, much like a
connection fee for the future.
Mr. O’Connell reported that regarding sewer system improvements, the Service Authority is doing
rehabilitation work in the Woodbrook drainage basin and has just finished the first phase of the Oak Hill
sewer project, which was funded primarily through CDBG funds that came through the state to the County.
He said that they are continuing a phase program of water line replacements in Hollymead, having just
finished Redwing and getting ready to start Robin Lane.
Referring to the water line replacements in Hollymead, Ms. Mallek asked about the life expectancy
of the water lines. Mr. O’Connell responded that a fair number of water lines weren’t built up to standards,
so their life has not been as long. He said that some of the lines are 40 or 50 years old, and design wise
they are looking at 30-50 years out.
Ms. Mallek asked what the new pipes are made of. Mr. O’Connell stated that the newer pipes are
ductile iron and have a wrapping inside that helps protect the pipe and maintain water quality. He said that
some of the older lines are plastic and small, and deteriorate to the point where they are leaking – with
priority replacement given to the pipes with the most problems.
Ms. Mallek asked if the ACSA can require restaurants to have filters for fat, oil and grease, as well
as reporting on their disposal.
Mr. O’Connell responded that there are about 200 restaurants in the ACSA’s Fats, Oil, Grease
program that have grease traps they inspect, and the participants must do an annual application to show
that they are maintained, and an inspection follows up. He stated that some of the larger apartment
complexes had grease getting into the lines, so the authority is working with them to get information to the
residents and explain the problems they will create in their own systems by dumping grease in the lines.
_______________
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Agenda Item No. 17. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Quarterly Update, Tom Frederick,
Executive Director.
Mr. Frederick summarized the following information which was forwarded to Board members:
1. Disinfection Byproducts: In a joint meeting of the “four boards” on July 25, 2012, each of
the boards agreed unanimously following a public hearing to “take chloramines off the
table” and pursue granular activated carbon (GAC) technology as the means to assure
our drinking water is in continuous compliance with future Stage 2 EPA regulations on
disinfection byproducts. Many citizens who spoke at the public hearing advocated that
they wanted the best quality of water achievable with GAC technology and were willing to
pay more for their drinking water to use this technology, asking that this community set a
very high standard for drinking water in support of future public health. Those statements
would support building and operating GAC at the full capacity of water produced all the
time. A few of the public comments, and some of the discussion among the “four boards”
after the hearing, expressed an interest in reviewing more economical GAC approaches,
or “hybrid” approaches, and the RWSA Board authorized a quick “desk -top” analysis by
Hazen and Sawyer to provide some initial concept-level ranges of potential costs for
“hybrid” approaches. This report is scheduled for review by the RWSA Board on August
28 and will be available on RWSA’s website by August 24. As stated, this report will be
concept-level; to refine approaches into a more definitive cost-estimate will require
additional pilot testing and preliminary design over a period of several months.
We define “hybrid” approaches to include building the GAC units at less than full
treatment plant capacity and/or operating GAC to treat less than the full volume of water
treated. The approach saves capital costs, operating costs, or both by not treating all of
the water through GAC, extending the life of the carbon so that costly regeneration or
replacement is performed less often. All water would continue to be treated using the
conventional facilities presently in operation, but not all conventionally treated water would
receive GAC treatment. “Hybrid” water is a step better than the excellent water we
produce today, but will contain more byproducts of disinfection than if GAC is provided to
100% of the water
.
2. South Fork Reservoir Dredging: RWSA has received proposals for dredging the South
Fork Reservoir, and after identifying if each proposal met the RFP requirements, as
required by RWSA’s PPEA Guidelines and in consultation with RWSA’s counsel, one
proposal has been accepted for publication by Orion Marine Group. That proposal is now
on our website for public review, and we are also receiving public feedback through our
website. We are planning a public meeting in September (date presently pending) to
receive further comments and will send an e-mail to a project e-mail distribution list when
the date is finalized (citizens not on the list can send an e-mail to info@rivanna.org to be
added to the list). An Evaluation Committee has been formed (Lauren Hildebrand is
representing the City and Mark Graham the County) and has held a Pre-Evaluation
Conference. It will meet to complete an evaluation of the Orion proposal following the
public meeting, with a recommendation to the RWSA Board anticipated in October.
3. Ragged Mountain Dam and Mitigation Plan: The Virginia Supreme Court has dismissed
an attempt to appeal the favorable ruling RWSA received from the County Circuit Court,
thereby validating the sale of revenue bonds to finance this project. Our Finance and
Administration Director is now moving through the process to complete a bond closing
this fall. Construction of both projects is in progress, with construction of a tunnel for the
new Ragged Mountain intake tower now underway and construction of the new dam’s
grout curtain (part of the foundation) to begin within the next 4-6 weeks. A section of
restoration of Buck Mountain Creek has been completed for the mitigation plan and site
grading is now being performed at the Franklin Street constructed wetland site. When
completed, the new wetland site will be an excellent opportunity for environmental
education for both students and adults, and it is RWSA’s plan to achieve that outreach.
4. Moores Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility: RWSA is pleased that the
upgrade of our advanced wastewater facility is now complete, within budget and ahead of
schedule. The facility is producing outstanding quality water for our streams and is
significantly contributing to a better Rivanna River, better James River, and better
Chesapeake Bay. DEQ Director David Paylor was warmly received from Richmond and
delivered guest remarks at a dedication of this facility on July 9, 2012. Following his
remarks, a new co-generator was started. The co-generator uses gas from the anaerobic
digestion of biosolids to produce renewable energy in the form of electricity to help power
the operation of the treatment facility. The construction cost was $48 million, of which $21
million was in state WQIF grants, and the project was originally scheduled for completion
in January 2013.
Mr. Frederick addressed the Board, stating that they were present at the July 25 meeting
regarding granular-activated carbon and indicating that the RWSA was moving forward on the basis of
that decision. Mr. Frederick said that a number of citizens at the public hearing said they wanted the best
water quality that GAC can deliver, which to RWSA means operating at 100% of the treatment plant. He
stated that this leads to the high end of the cost range for this project, estimated at a conceptual stage at
about $18 million for the three urban water plants – with operating costs close to $1 million per year in
additional costs.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Frederick said that some public comments suggested looking at some alternative, more
economical approaches such as a hybrid system that would operate at less than all of the treated water
and blending some water that’s been conventionally treated with water that’s been both conventionally
treated and GAC treated. He stated that it could range from meeting the minimum EPA Stage II rules up
to the full-scale best water possible, and all options being considered are on the very, very high end of the
range. Mr. Frederick said that the water quality today is excellent, and there is no backsliding of any kind
with the treatment processes used today, so the debate is how much better do we want to get and how
much money do we want to pay for it.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is a sliding scale by which you reach a point where you are
spending a lot of money to achieve a very minute improvement in water quality. Mr. Frederick responded
that there was a law of diminishing return at work here, with each step to get the next increment having a
bigger and bigger spending gap.
Mr. Rooker said that among the Board, City Council, and Authority participants, there was
significant interest in looking at hybrid approaches. Mr. Frederick said that’s what he understood, and the
RWSA Board would have to provide some direction as to a goal for quality.
Ms. Mallek said that the testing parts that failed were at the dead ends, and asked if there were
structural changes to those delivery systems that could cut out the water that stands so long.
Mr. Frederick stated that every water system has a distribution network whereby water is at
various ages, due to distance from the water treatment plant and other factors. He said that ACSA has
designed and invested a very significant amount of money, and developers have helped them with those
investments. He stated that to completely redo the distribution system would be an enormous,
unfathomable amount of money. Mr. Frederick added that to some extent, RWSA would need to work
with the ACSA and with the City to best use the resources available. He said there are programs that can
be taken advantage of to a greater extent than they have in the past, which incorporates finding areas of
the system where there is higher water age and doing some selective flushing of water lines. Mr.
Frederick stated that he suggested doing that when he first assumed his position at RWSA, as most
utilities do that, but he encountered resistance here because people felt it was wasting water.
He emphasized that there are other things that could be done, but changing the way water moves
through a distribution can be very expensive because it involves putting more pipes in the ground. Mr.
Frederick said that much of the improvement can be planned through modeling a system, which ACSA
now has the capability of doing, and doing tests to confirm that the model is making reasonable
predictions – as well as doing some selective flushing of the system. He noted that RWSA staff had a
meeting with ACSA staff just a few weeks prior, so that process is continuing.
Mr. Frederick stated that a report was issued on August 24 and was reviewed by the RWSA
Board the previous week, and the Four Boards had agreed to have them spend $9,500 to get a best
guess whereby an engineer does a desktop analysis. He said that it is not an ultimate or final answer, but
it did suggest that the hybrid range be from 40%-100% of the capital and operating costs he had
mentioned previously. Mr. Frederick stated that a lower end target would mean capital costs of about $8
million and operating costs of about $1/2 million, but the numbers may change as the process is refined.
He said that the RWSA Board also authorized pilot-plant testing, bringing GAC columns – small
prototypes – and taking a sample on both ends to see how the system is doing. Mr. Frederick stated that
this would help establish how big the final columns need to be in the full-scale plant, how long they’re
expected to operate before the carbon is spent, and how fast the carbon degrades. He added that he
hoped to have the columns in place within 30 days so that testing could begin.
Mr. Frederick reported that the RWSA Board had approved a milestone schedule and would be
submitting to the Virginia Department of Health later that week to pursue a two-year time extension, as
suggested by Mr. Moore.
Mr. Snow said that he had read an estimate for the GAC at $15 million, not $18 million.
Mr. Frederick responded that the RWSA only have conceptual-level cost estimates from an
engineer at this point, not bids, and the $18 million would be refined as the design process moves forward.
Ms. Mallek asked if any part of this could be modular, with incremental increases achieved by
adding modules rather than an entire new system.
Mr. Frederick replied that it is not infinitely scalable, but there are options. He said that the layout
of the facility during preliminary design would be laid out for 100% GAC, and they use future operations as
the basis for the layout. Mr. Frederick added that they do not have to blend at the same rate at each of
the three water plants, with pilot plant data used to help establish the ranges at different plants – provided
that the policy decision is to use a hybrid.
Mr. Rooker commented that at the end of the day, you need the cost and the incremental
improvement in water quality achieved through increased investment, so the information is needed to
establish what the dollars spent equate to in terms of improved water quality.
Mr. Frederick stated that he had included some information in his report about the dredging
project and Ragged Mountain Dam construction, and they are moving forward with getting an official
statement prepared – a series of steps with bond counsel leading toward a bond sale that would likely
happen in the fall. He said that this would complete the financing of the project, and the mitigation plan is
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
proceeding. Mr. Frederick noted that there is work taking place in the Franklin Street and Buck Mountain
Creek areas, and he feels it will be one of the stellar environmental projects of this community when it is
completed. He said that a section of badly eroded stream was being restored there, and riparian buffer
planting should begin this fall – with bids taken within the week.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a time of year it was optimal to dredge, and if the RWSA were on a
schedule that would allow dredging to take place during an optimal period.
Mr. Frederick said that most contracts like to start in spring, but he wasn’t aware of any
impediments to operating during other times of the year – although bitterly cold temperatures can be a
hindrance. He stated that the RWSA is moving forward with the process based on the way the process
was laid out, noting that the RWSA Board had received a lot of public input from advocacy groups about a
year ago on how to do this process. Mr. Frederick said that people asked for a very open process,
allowing dredgers to say how they wanted to do it, and through PPEA, RWSA found a structure that
Virginia law allows that will permit some of that openness.
He stated that the RWSA would hold a public meeting on September 20th, which was requested
when there was deliberation about the process, and no one realized there would only be one proposal
submitted at this stage. Mr. Frederick noted that two of the three proposals received were found not to be
fully responsive to the requirements of the RFP, and under the advice of counsel they could not be further
reviewed. He said that the RWSA is reviewing one proposal by Orion Marine Group, and the way the
evaluation plan was developed limits staff comment so the hearing wouldn’t be an educational-type
meeting. Mr. Frederick said that the evaluation committee – with Mark Graham being the County’s
representative – is not to be judging the proposals at this meeting, but will hear what people say. He
suggested that those who are interested review the Orion proposal online, and said the RWSA would
clarify any questions they might have. Mr. Frederick reported that they are expecting the evaluation
committee to make a recommendation to the RWSA Board in October.
Mr. Rooker asked if the RWSA was in a position now to negotiate with the one qualified bidder.
Mr. Frederick replied, yes.
Ms. Mallek asked at what point in the process the location of where the dredged material would be
placed would come into the timetable.
Mr. Frederick responded that Orion has included in their conceptual proposal the use of
Panorama Farms for the material, but conceptual-based proposals are not commitments so there is still
an opportunity for negotiation. He said that commitment had to be made at the time of contract, and the
RWSA wouldn’t enter into a contract without knowing the dredged m aterial’s placement location.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was up to the contractor to include the material placement within the
contract.
Mr. Frederick responded that, that was part of the flexibility that citizen groups asked the RWSA
Board to please let contractors determine their own sites and not dictate sites the sites to the contractor,
so that’s how the RFP was developed.
Mr. Rooker commented that other circumstances might dictate the site.
Ms. Mallek said she was disappointed that it didn’t work out for someone who would dry the
material and remove it, instead of stockpiling it.
Mr. Frederick stated that the removal option was on the table, and was left to the bidders to
decide how they wanted to deal with it.
Mr. Snow asked for an update on the dam.
Mr. Frederick explained that construction was very close to on schedule, maybe two weeks
behind, and the contractor is working on the tunnel and the foundation for a new intake tower – both
critical components to have in service by next spring so the water can be completely diverted to the new
tunnel, allowing the footprint of the lifts of the earthen dam to come up without any piping conflicts. He
said that a good amount of clearing around the reservoir within the footprint of the new reservoir has been
done, and the contractor has done an excellent job of sticking to construction limits. Mr. Frederick noted
that the contractor had put together an excellent erosion and sediment control plan, and County staff has
agreed that it is very good quality.
Mr. Frederick reported that the RWSA held a dedication of their wastewater facility on July 9, with
David Peddlar as speaker, and it was a great opportunity for this community to take pride in what RWSA
has invested in. He said that the RWSA put real resources, not just lip service, into improving the quality
of our rivers and streams, by virtue of that project.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. 2013 Legislative Priorities.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
Each year the Board considers and approves its legislative priorities and submits them to the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo)
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
and the Virginia Municipal League (VML). Generally, the TJPDC’s legislative program incorporates the
County’s legislative priorities. Other initiatives are sometimes added prior to the General Assembly
session. This executive summary will provide a review of the Board’s 2012 Legislative Priorities and
request the Board to review and approve the 2013 Legislative Priorities.
A review of the County’s 2012 Legislative Priorities is provided in the attached “2012 Legislative
Priorities Report” (Attachment B). The report details previous action taken on the priorities, an
assessment of what priorities should be continued in the future and links to the final legislative reports of
the TJPDC, VACo and VML.
Many of the proposed 2013 Legislative Priorities (Attachment A) carry forward the 2012
Legislative Priorities. The following two new priorities have been identified for 2013:
Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation
Request legislation to add Albemarle County to the list of localities enabled to regulate the outdoor
storage of inoperable motor vehicles on private property pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-905.
Background: The County regulates the storage of inoperable vehicles on private property under
its zoning powers in County Code § 18-4.12 and under its police powers in County Code § 9-500. The
enabling authority under which the County regulates inoperable vehicles under its police powers is Virginia
Code § 15.2-904.
Reason for Requested Legislation: Virginia Code § 15.2-904 allows an unlimited number of
inoperable vehicles to be stored on private property outside of a fully enclosed building or structure as long
as the vehicles are shielded or screened from view. Section 15.2-904 also allows localities to limit the
number of inoperable vehicles stored outdoors that are shielded or screened from view by covers.
“Shielded or screened from view” means “not visible by someone standing at ground level from outside of
the property on which the subject vehicle is located.”
Virginia Code § 15.2-905 provides broader enabling authority to 17 localities (12 cities, and 5
counties). Section 15.2-905 enables localities to “limit the number of inoperable motor vehicles which any
person may keep outside of a fully enclosed building or structure,” even if the vehicles are shielded or
screened from view by covers or any other means.
Approximately 20% of all complaints received by Zoning have included inoperable vehicles.
Recent citizen complaints from neighborhood watch groups and homeowners associations have brought
several issues to staff’s attention. The outdoor storage of inoperable vehicles, whether shielded or
screened from view as defined by state law or not, has been a source of conflict in urban and suburban
neighborhoods where lot sizes are small. Although an inoperable vehicle stored outside may not be
visible by someone standing at ground level, it, nonetheless, may be visible from nearby properties and
homes. In addition, staff has found situations where the outdoor storage of inoperable vehicles on small
lots has caused owners to have to park their operable vehicles on the street because there was no room
to park on-site. Sometimes these public streets are not designed for on-street parking and this creates
further conflict. Lastly, vehicles are not subject to setback requirements under the Zoning Ordinance, so
inoperable vehicles can be stored very close to the lot line and close to the abutting lot’s improvements or
active outdoor areas.
As parts of the County are urbanized with smaller lots, the County needs to assure that its
regulations can appropriately address the adverse impacts that may arise from that urbanization.
Requesting an amendment to Virginia Code § 15.2-905 to enable Albemarle County to limit the number of
inoperable vehicles that may be kept outside of an enclosed building or structure will allow the County to
more appropriately address the potential adverse impacts from the storage of inoperable vehicle on small
lots.
Local Government Administration and Finance
Request legislation to permit Albemarle County and other localities to retain the civil penalties
collected from illegal sign removal in VDOT right-of-ways by amending Virginia Code § 33.1-373.
Background: Virginia Code § 33.1-373 allows all localities to enter into agreements with VDOT
to act as VDOT’s agents in removing illegal signs from VDOT right-of-ways. Virginia Code § 33.1-375.1
specifically authorizes Fairfax County to enter into an agreement with VDOT for the removal of such illegal
signs and to retain the penalties and costs collected from removing those signs. All other localities that
remove illegal signs from VDOT right-of-ways are not enabled to retain any related civil penalties collected
and must pay those civil penalties into the state’s Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund.
Reason for Requested Legislation: An amendment to Virginia Code § 33.1-373 to enable
Albemarle County and all other localities to retain the penalties and costs collected from illegal sign
removal would provide funding to those localities enforcing and actively removing illegal signs in the right-
of-ways.
After the Board’s review, input and approval of the proposed 2013 Legislative Priorities, staff will
submit the Board’s 2013 Legislative Priorities to the TJPDC, VACo and VML for consideration for their
respective legislative programs. The 2013 TJPDC Legislative Program will return to the Board for
additional input and approval.
The County’s legislative priorities seek to ensure that the state adequately funds its mandated
responsibilities and does not jeopardize the County’s ability to effectively and efficiently implement the
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
policies (including fiscal) and programs that it deems necessary. There are no specific, identifiable budget
impacts.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed 2013 Legislative Priorities (Attachment
A), and any additions it feels are appropriate, for submission to the TJPDC, VACo and VML.
_____
Mr. Davis reported that staff has prepared for the Board last year’s legislative priorities and what
activity has occurred under each, and most of those priorities are carried over again this year. He said
that the highlights are keeping an eye on biosolids legislation; transportation funding; comprehensive
services act funding; full funding of state mandates; and legislation regarding split voting precincts. Mr.
Davis stated that in addition, there are two new items that have been brought forth by staff. He explained
that zoning staff has been dealing with zoning complaints and an initiative to update the inoperable motor
vehicles ordinance in the County code, and when staff started looking at that they found that the enabling
legislation does not provide the flexibility to address some of the issues being raised.
Mr. Davis said there was another enabling section that only 17 localities are authorized to use,
which would give greater flexibility and more innovative approaches, so staff is asking the Board to
support enabling legislation to add Albemarle under Section 15.2-905 to address that issue. He stated
that if they get that enabling legislation, staff will bring forth proposals as to how to implement it. Mr. Davis
said that staff is also looking at ways to be innovative in addressing other enforcement issues and funding
of them, with a priority on dealing with signs in the right of way. He noted that one restriction by state law
is that any fines for a violation go to the Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund at the state level, even
if the County is implementing an agreement to enforce the restrictions locally. Mr. Davis said that currently
Fairfax County is the only county that has the enabling authority to receive the fines if they do the
enforcement, and staff thinks it would be a reasonable approach for Albemarle to be included in the
legislation – so they are asking that the Board support requesting enabling legislation to permit the County
to receive the fines as well. He said that if they receive that, staff would look at whether a more
aggressive policy could be put in place and funded by fines to support other staff resources so they could
be more effective at dealing with signs in the right of way.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County would have to collect the fines. Mr. Davis responded that the
County would have to collect them as part of a civil enforcement process. He said that the other item not
on the 2013 priority list currently is a budget amendment request regarding the composite index pertaining
to revenue sharing, and because the School Board has not yet discussed it staff didn’t include it in this
year’s agenda. Mr. Davis said it could be added in the fall if there’s consensus for the initiative to move
forward, but staff has no recommendation on it at this point.
Mr. Rooker said that before the Board goes down that road, there should be a discussion with
legislators about the potential for such a bill passing given what has happened with the last two attempts.
He stated that he does not want to spend a huge amount of time, effort and money unless there is a
change of climate at the state level.
Mr. Davis agreed with those comments.
Mr. Davis then concluded his presentation by requesting that the Board adopt the 2013 Legislative
Priorities, with the understanding that between now and the time the next General Assembly session
begins there could be new priorities.
Mr. Boyd asked if it was worth keeping the request for scenic protection and tourist enhancement
the County has been asking for through enabling authority.
Mr. Davis responded that this was opportunity legislation and came out of the Mountain Protection
Ordinance initiative. He said that Sally Thomas went to the General Assembly and served on an
independent body that tried to explain to the legislature that given localities’ limitations on aesthetics,
perhaps there could be more practical legislation in dealing with the problem rather than restricting the
uses. Mr. Davis stated that it has been on the agenda for several years but hasn’t moved forward as
something approvable. He said that staff still thinks that visual protection in the County is a high priority,
but they’re just waiting for the right proposal to come forward that they could support.
Mr. Rooker clarified that Mr. Davis was saying is that it is an important matter for the County, but
there is no proposed legislation at this time – nor does the County plan on proposing their own.
Ms. Mallek said that another locality might come up with a proposal that Albemarle could be a part
of and added that the tourist money is important and a few catastrophic occasions could really change
things.
Mr. Boyd said that he didn’t any have strong feelings about it one way or the other, but wanted to
bring it up.
Mr. Rooker said that since no time or money is being spent on it, it is really just a placeholder.
Board members agreed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to approve the proposed 2013
Legislative Priorities (set out below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dumler.
Albemarle County 2013 Legislative Priorities
Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation
Biosolids—Support legislation enabling localities, as part of their zoning ordinances, to designate and/or
reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to specific areas within the locality based on criteria related
to the public safety and welfare of its citizens and the environment. In addition, support legislation regarding
land application of biosolids that protect the environment, public health and safety.
Inoperable vehicles—Request legislation to amend Virginia Code § 15.2-905 to include Albemarle
County as a locality enabled to restrict the number of inoperable vehicles which may be kept outside of an
enclosed building or structure on residential or commercial property.
Local Authority—Support legislation to 1) strengthen localities’ authority by enabling them to utilize adequate
public facilities ordinances; and 2) not pass legislation that preempts or circumvents existing local authority to
regulate land use.
Impact Fee Authority—Support impact fee legislation that allows for 1) a fair allocation of costs representing
a “pro-rata” off-set of new growth on public facilities; 2) impact fees for facility costs related to transportation,
schools, fire, police, emergency medical services, libraries, stormwater management, open space and
parks/recreation lands; 3) effective implementation through simple locally-based formulae and reasonable
administrative requirements; 4) does not cap or limit localities’ impact fee updates; and 5) does not diminish
the existing proffer system.
Conservation Easements—Support legislation that augments local efforts in natural resource protection
through 1) continuing to fund the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation (VLCF) for locally established and
funded Purchase of Development Rights programs (e.g. ACE Program in Albemarle County); 2) continuing to
provide matching funds to localities for their Purchase of Development Rights programs through the Office of
Farmland Preservation; 3) retaining provisions in transient occupancy tax legislation so that funds can
continue to be used to protect open-space and resources of historical, cultural, ecological and scenic value
that attract tourism; and 4) increase incentives for citizens to create conservation easements.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement—Support enabling legislation for Albemarle County to provide
for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the
visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide a method to ensure
full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the County makes land use decisions in
designated areas.
Transportation Funding—Support legislation to 1) establish stable and consistent state revenues for
Virginia’s long-term transportation infrastructure needs; 2) direct funding efforts at all transportation modes; 3)
coordinate planning for transportation and land use, being mindful of local Comprehensive and regional
Transportation Plans when planning transportation systems within a locality; and 4) strongly oppose any
legislation or regulations that would require the transfer of responsibility to counties for cons truction,
maintenance or operation of new and existing secondary roads.
Health and Human Services
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)—Request that the legislature assist localities’ implementation of CSA in
a consistent, financially stable manner by: 1) fully funding the state pool for CSA with allocations based on
realistic anticipated levels of need and a cap on local expenditures for serving a child through CSA; 2)
enhancing state funding for grants to localities to create community-based alternatives for children served in
CSA; 3) establishing state contacts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management
process, improve vendor accountability and control costs; and 4) encouraging the state to be proactive in
making service providers available and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing
among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
Child Care for Low Income Working Families—Request that the legislature provide additional funds to local
governments to assist low-income working families with childcare costs. This funding helps working-class
parents pay for supervised day care facilities and supports efforts for families to become self -sufficient.
Local Department of Social Services (LDSS)—Request that the legislature increase funds for LDSS to
match all available federal dollars to assist LDSS staffing needs in order to meet state mandated services and
workloads.
Local Government Administration and Finance
Sign removal in the right-of-way—Request legislation to amend Virginia Code § 33.1-373 to enable
localities to retain the civil penalties collected from illegal sign removal in the right-of-way.
Voting Precincts—Request legislation to eliminate split precincts to the extent possible. The Virginia Senate
and House of Delegates redistricting plans have created split precincts in the Jack Jouett, Rio and Rivanna
Magisterial Districts. The Jack Jouett precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts in three
places. The Woodbrook precinct is split between the 17th and the 25th Senate Districts. The Free Bridge
precinct is split between the 57th and 58th House Districts; and the Stony Point precinct is split between the 17th
and 25th Senate Districts.
Full Funding of State Mandates—Request that the state budget provide full funding for its mandates in all
areas of local government including the Standards of Quality (SOQs), positions approved by the
Compensation Board, costs related to jails and juvenile detention centers and human services positions.
Local Control of Local Revenues—Oppose legislation that restricts or limits the existing local control of local
revenues so that local government leaders can take appropriate measures to generate sufficient revenues to
sustain and improve services.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Drug Court Funding—Request that the legislature fully fund the Drug Court Program, which provides
effective treatment and intensive supervision to drug offenders through the Circuit Courts of several Virginia
localities.
Cost to Compete Pay Differential—Due to the documented high cost of living in Albemarle County, request
that the legislature include Albemarle County Schools in the “Cost to Compete Pay Differential” so that the
County may reach and maintain competitive compensation to help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified
and diverse teacher workforce.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Meeting.
At 1:06 p.m., Mr. Boyd offered motion that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss and consider appointments to specific
boards, committees, and commissions; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal matters related to the negotiation of an interjurisdctional agreement for regional
library services. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dumler.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:04 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to certify
by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters
lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and
identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the closed
meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snow. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dumler.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Mr. Snow offered motion to make the following appointments/reappointments:
appoint Mr. Charles Newton to the Local Board of Building Code Appeals with said term
to expire November 21, 2017;
reappoint Mr. John Murphy and Mr. Lonnie Murray to the Natural Heritage Committee
with said terms to expire September 30, 2016;
appoint Mr. Charles Newton to the Places 29 Community Advisory Council with said term
to expire January 31, 2013;
reappoint Ms. Bonnie Samuel to the Route 250 West Task Force with said term to expire
September 5, 2015; and
appoint Ms. June Tate to the Route 250 West Task Force with said term to expire
September 5, 2015.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dumler.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Fire Rescue FEMA SAFER Grant Award.
Mr. Dan Eggleston, Chief of Fire and Rescue, summarized the following executive summary
which was forwarded to Board members:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant was established to provide funding directly to fire departments and
volunteer firefighter organizations in order to help them increase the number of trained, "front line"
firefighters available in their communities. The goal of the SAFER Grant is to enhance the local fire
departments' abilities to comply with staffing, response, and operational standards established by the
National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(“OSHA”).
In February of 2012, the Department of Fire Rescue applied for a SAFER Grant to fund a second
daytime crew consisting of five firefighters at the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (“STVFD”) and
four additional firefighters to staff the new Ivy station.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
An additional career daytime crew at STVFD has been requested by both volunteers and the
career staff serving this station for many years as part of Strategic Initiatives and Below Core Needs
assessments, primarily due to the limited daytime availability of volunteer staffing at the station and the
demand for service generated by the coverage area for this station. Currently, the three person Albemarle
County Fire Rescue (ACFR) crew that is there from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. is able to respond with either
an engine or a ladder truck, but not both at the same time. This meets the NFPA standard roughly 30% of
the time (10 firefighters on-scene in 10 minutes 80% of the time). With the additional crew, the
Department should be able to meet the standard closer to 50% of the time. In addition, availability of a
second crew at STVFD during daylight weekday hours will enhance the County’s ability to respond to calls
in the Rio/Georgetown/Barracks Road area of the County.
The Ivy station is budgeted for eight career staff. A volunteer recruitment plan is in place, led by
volunteer Chief Bob Larsen, to recruit at least 24 volunteers. This paid and volunteer staff would enable
the station to meet the minimum staffing requirement of having three firefighters on-duty twenty-four hours
per day, seven days per week for one engine. Currently Chief Larsen has between fifteen and twenty
volunteers committed to joining the station. About 50% of the interested volunteers currently volunteer at
other County volunteer fire stations and the remainder need minimum training and will attend an upcoming
fire academy in order to achieve full training in time for this station to open. Chief Larsen agreed that in
order to support 24/7 minimum staffing on the Ivy engine, the four additional requested career staff at Ivy
would support the volunteer effort, could fill specialty roles, such as driver-operator, and support the
additional training necessary for the volunteers.
By letter dated July 27, 2012, staff was informed that the County’s application for funding was
approved by FEMA for a two year period in the amount of $1,261,341. Acceptance of this Grant would
provide funding for the second daytime crew at STVFD and for additional firefighter positions at the Ivy
Station. Additional local funds would be required as discussed below. The County Attorney’s Office has
reviewed the Grant documents and finds them acceptable. Acceptance of this Grant for this purpose is
contingent upon the Board’s approval.
The Grant amount for the two year period is $1,261,341. The four additional staff for Ivy will be
used to provide coverage while the volunteer recruitment effort for the station continues with the goal of
staffing being provided predominantly by volunteers for nights and weekends. If the Grant is accepted by
the Board, the FY14 ($81,540) costs listed below will be included in the FY14 budget process.
Should the Board agree to support this grant, the projected ongoing costs to continue these staff
beyond FY14 will be proposed in the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan, along with offsetting revenues or
expenditure changes to potentially offset the impact. The period of the Grant is October 18, 2012 –
October 17, 2014. If the Grant is accepted, it is likely that the County would not hire these additional
personnel until January 2013, in which case an extension can be requested so that the County can
receive the full 24 months of funding through January 2015.
Although no local match is required, SAFER Grants provide funding for only salary and benefits.
Additional estimated costs are set forth below and would require local funding support should acceptance
of the Grant be approved.
Operating
F13
9 FF
One time
FY14
9 FF
On-going
Line of Duty Act
1,836
Training (Training & Ops divisions) 4,725 4,725
Health Services (Physicals) 7,200 3,600
Overtime Wages 14,625 58,500
FICA (for OT impact) 1,119 4,475
Advertising 500 0
Water & Sewer Services 351 1,404
Laundry/Janitorial Sup. 250 1,000
Uniforms & Apparel: 13,500 3,600
F/R Turnout Gear: on-going
2,400
Total Operating 42,270 81,540
Capital
F/R Turnout Gear - initial purchase 21,600
Total Capital 21,600
Total 63,870 81,540
Staff recommends that the funds associated with the start up and the FY 13 operating costs
($42,270) be provided by the Grants Opportunity Fund. The current unreserved balance of the Grants
Opportunity Fund is $44,508. Additionally, staff recommends that the one-time capital costs ($21,600) be
provided from the Capital Reserve.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
If the Board accepts this Grant, staff will present an appropriation request for the Board’s approval
in October.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the County’s acceptance of the SAFER Grant.
_____
Mr. Eggleston said that last year Albemarle County Fire and Rescue staff applied for a FEMA
Safer grant to fund additional staff for Ivy and Seminole Trail volunteer fire departments. He said that the
staff had requested four additional staff for Ivy to ensure there is 24/7 coverage there, and five additional
staff to add a second daytime crew at Seminole. Mr. Eggleston stated that they had been recently notified
of the grant’s approval by FEMA of $1.2 million over a two-year period, and the grant does not require
matching funds nor is there any requirement to keep staff on board past the grant period. He said that he
would briefly discuss the justification process used, ongoing project costs, and implementation – and then
ask for the Board to approve the grant.
Mr. Eggleston reported that with Seminole Trail, staff is working with the Chief to put forward a
request for additional crew. He said that the justification for the crew was based on their ability to meet
NFPA standards, adding that for a structure fire they try to have 10 firefighters on the scene within 10
minutes, 80% of the time. Mr. Eggleston stated that they are currently only able to meet the response
standard about 30% of the time, and the additional staffing would bring that up to about 50%. He said that
the justification for four additional Ivy staff is based on their ability to staff a single-engine company 24
hours a day, seven days a week. Mr. Eggleston said that Bob Larsen was doing a wonderful job recruiting
volunteers, and there are about 20 volunteers signed up – about 2/3 of the goal – with many of them in the
training process currently. He stated that this would allow additional staffing to close the small gap, and
allow them to help train and prepare the volunteers for Ivy. Mr. Eggleston added that they still need to get
the word out in order to get more volunteers for that station, and Mr. Snow has been helping in that regard.
Mr. Eggleston reported that although the grant requires no matching funds, there are some
ongoing costs – with salary and benefits funded through the grant. He stated that staff recommends that
the funds to outfit the personnel and provide additional financial support be taken out of the grants
opportunity fund, with one-time costs taken out of capital reserve. Mr. Eggleston commended staff for
their work on the grant, and asked the Board for their approval in accepting the grant so staff can begin
the implementation phase.
Mr. Boyd said that the biggest additional expense is an overtime cost of $58,500, and asked how
that was established. Mr. Eggleston responded that there was a certain amount of overtime inherently
built into the 24-hour schedule that is required, and unexpected overtime if there is a late call. He said
that staff hoped to see an overall downturn in the amount of overtime once the additional personnel are in
place, because there will be staff available to fill gaps created by injury, illness, etc. Mr. Eggleston stated
that additional overtime is built into this schedule and is reflected in the expenses.
Mr. Boyd said he does not usually support spending one-time money for ongoing operating costs,
and something would be needed in the budget for the future in order to maintain the staff members. Mr.
Eggleston responded that he has already discussed with Chief Tawney and Chief Larsen
what happens at the end of the grant period, and both are doing a very good job in recruiting additional
volunteers so the hope is there would be some other options.
Ms. Mallek said that there may be some turnover in the department that these personnel would be
able to backfill. Mr. Eggleston stated that Fire/Rescue have about 10-12% of turnover annually in their
department through attrition, and the positions could be eliminated that way.
Mr. Foley said that staff would have some type of preliminary plan in the five-year plan presented
in November, with staff either being eliminated or covered through some other revenue source.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification on the $13,500 in uniform costs for the nine firefighters. Mr.
Eggleston explained that it covered raincoats, pants, boots, shirts, etc.
Mr. Rooker noted that the biggest expense by far is the overtime, as Mr. Boyd had mentioned.
Ms. Mallek asked if the $58,500 in the next year would only be needed if these personnel were not
pulled into replacing staff that had retired or left.
Mr. Eggleston said that the only obligation in this grant was keeping them employed for the two-
year period.
Ms. Mallek asked if the FY14 totals reflected the second year of the grant. Mr. Eggleston
confirmed that they did.
Ms. Mallek asked if they had two over-hires now that float between stations, in keeping with the
plan of adding one each year to help with overtime.
Mr. Eggleston said that they help to fill in when there are vacations and other types of leave,
adding that they are currently reevaluating what kind of impact that had and doing some benchmarking
with other localities to find out if the department is within reason. He noted that their preliminary data
shows the department does not have anything out of whack, but they still want to drive down overtime
costs as much as possible.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Mr. Rooker asked for clarification that they are considering using the grant to fund something that
was not planned – it was not in the budget to provide the staff at those locations. He added that he has
difficulty understanding why – if that service wasn’t planned to be provided – they would incur almost
$60,000 of overtime in year two, related to that – we’re talking about, again, adding staff that would not
have been there other than for the grant.”
Mr. Davis pointed out that some of that circumstance results from OSHA regulations requiring that
there be a complete crew to run calls, and if you’re short a person the station couldn’t run calls at all.
Ms. Mallek said that the station could call an extra truck or a volunteer to take a second seat.
Mr. Eggleston mentioned that there has been no contingency plan for Ivy, and although the
department has been successful there is still a gap in coverage there. He said that they were going to
have to hire some folks, so this relieves that need. He added that the staffing for Seminole has been a
need for quite some time, but they’ve been unable to fund it.
Mr. Rooker said he wasn’t arguing over the acceptance of the grant, but it seemed odd to him that
in bringing on additional people there is more in overtime costs; it seems that with more people you could
staff in a way that you would not be scheduling overtime.
Mr. Eggleston explained that there is a certain amount of overtime inherently built into that
schedule, and he could bring something back to explain how that is allocated. He emphasized that their
discretionary overtime is a small slice of that pie, and they are certainly trying to drive that down.
Mr. Snow said he understood Mr. Rooker’s concerns, and asked what the overtime would be if
they hadn’t hired four people.
Mr. Rooker responded that Mr. Eggleston was saying the cost would be nothing – that this was
actually driving the need for overtime.
Mr. Foley said that an example of this would be bringing on a police officer who was writing tickets
– so there would be expanded service because there would be more tickets, but that officer would have to
go to court on those cases which is overtime. He added that the situation with the firefighters is the same.
Mr. Eggleston agreed, stating that the word overtime conjures up the idea of additional funding but
it is actually built into their schedules. He noted that some localities pull that forced overtime out and put it
into salary and benefits, with the true overtime associated with illness, leave, etc. reflected in the overtime
line item. Mr. Eggleston reiterated that he would bring something back to the Board to explain exactly
where overtime is allocated.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that the overtime figure is time and a half, which also drives the cost up.
Mr. Boyd asked if firefighters were scheduled for 42 hours per week. Mr. Eggleston responded
that a 24-hour firefighter works about 54 hours per week average, and would incur overtime because the
Fair Labor Standards Act establishes a threshold just below how many hours they work – so when they
work a full week, inherent overtime is built into their schedule. He said that half of the field staff works 12-
hour shifts, and the other half works 24-hour shifts.
Mr. Foley noted that the County had to make an additional appropriation last year, and as a result
of that is doing an analysis and staff would bring it back to the Board.
Mr. Boyd suggested that it be a part of the budget report for the ensuing year.
Ms. Mallek commented that if it was ready sooner, then she would rather have it sooner so that it
does not get swallowed up in a lot of other numbers.
Mr. Foley suggested bringing it back as part of the Board’s five-year plan discussion.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the County’s acceptance of the SAFER Grant.
Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dumler.
Board members congratulated Mr. Eggleston on the grant.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Wireless Policy/Regulations Update.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
The Board of Supervisors directed staff to research the need to change the County’s existing
Wireless Policy and regulations. In an effort to determine the needs and desires of the wireless
community, staff conducted a roundtable with representatives of the wireless industry on June 7, 2012. A
summary of the comments made at the roundtable are included as Attachment A. The County also
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
retained the services of a consultant to provide information and analysis regarding several issues
identified by the Board. The report of the consultant is included as Attachment B.
CityScape Consultants Inc. was selected to provide information regarding the following issues:
1. Describe how technology may be changing deployment.
2. Describe the court decisions that are influencing the regulating of deployment and why.
3. Describe the FCC rulings, programs and policy initiatives that may impact regulation of
deployment and why.
4. Describe how changes in wireless will impact the regulation of deployment.
5. Describe how Albemarle County’s policy should change and list those sections in the
County Code that need to be revised on the basis of technology, court cases and the
recent FCC rulings.
6. Determine how the County could encourage broadband deployment into portions of the
County not currently served.
Staff has reviewed the consultant’s report, considered the comments of the wireless industry
made at the roundtable, and conducted its own research. Through this work staff finds, and the consultant
agree, that with the exception of the regulatory changes listed below, that the County’s current Wireless
Policy and regulations are consistent with existing technology, case law and FCC rulings, and that newer
technology can be deployed within this framework.
Staff recommends a number of changes to the County’s Ordinance and Policy that fall into four
general categories, as follows:
Changes designed to address recent changes in federal law:
1. Add definitions for terms such as “collocation,” “substantial change,” and “existing facility.”
2. Allow equipment to be replaced on existing towers (regardless of how they were
permitted), with only building permit review.
3. Other changes to ensure wireless regulations are consistent with recent FCC rulings and
changes in federal law.
Changes to the design of sites:
1. Remove the limitation on the number of arrays permitted on any individual tower.
2. Investigate potential changes to the antenna mounting and size limitations.
3. Remove or modify setback requirements.
4. Remove antenna design requirements for antenna located within a structure.
5. Investigate modifications to the maximum monopole width permitted to ensure interior
cable routing can occur.
6. Increase the number of facilities permitted within 200 feet of each other from 3 to 4 before
a Tier III special use permit review is required.
Changes to the review process:
1. Allow wooden poles to be replaced with metal poles, with only building permit review.
2. Allow monopoles of up to 60 feet by right, regardless of their proximity to any tree.
3. Allow Tier II monopoles to be 15 feet above the reference tree.
4. Allow Tier II facilities to be approved administratively by staff rather than continuing to be
approved by the Board by special exception.
5. Exempt wireless facilities from the critical slopes provisions.
6. Exempt wireless facilities from review by the Architectural Review Board.
7. Remove Rural Historic Districts from the list of Avoidance Areas, which requires the
facility to obtain a Tier III special use permit.
Changes to submittal requirements:
1. Amend submittal requirements so that only trees or other screening material near the
facility or disturbed areas are shown.
2. Eliminate mandatory annual reporting requirement and instead require the service
provider to submit a report upon the request of the County.
Prior to presenting a zoning text amendment to the Board for consideration, staff recommends
that the wireless industry and the general public be further engaged in the process.
Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
One recent change in federal law requires preliminary consideration by the Board. Section 6409 of
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 states in part that “Local government may not
deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or
base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.”
Section 6409 does not alter localities’ processes for approving an application for a change that is not
substantial; the statute only requires that the application be approved.
At the June 7, 2012 wireless roundtable, representatives from the wireless industry urged that a
definition of the phrase “substantial increase in the size of the tower” contained in a federal document
known as the “Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas” (the
“Programmatic Agreement”) (Attachment C) be used to define “substantially change” as used in Section
6409. At this point, staff has concerns and doubts as to whether the definition in the Programmatic
Agreement should be used to define a “substantial change” under Section 6409, including the following:
1. Although the Programmatic Agreement preceded Section 6409, Congress chose to use
the phrase “substantially change” instead of “substantial increase in the size of the tower”.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
2. The Programmatic Agreement was entered into between federal agencies and its
purpose was to establish guidelines for the speed by which changes to wireless facilities
located on historic federal buildings would be acted upon by a federal agency; Section
6409 applies to localities and the exercise of their zoning and police powers.
3. The FCC relied on the Programmatic Agreement in a declaratory ruling directing localities
to expedite action on wireless facilities by acting on those that would not require a
substantial increase in the size of the tower within 90 days; Section 6409 does not pertain
to the speed by which a locality must approve a facility.
4. Extensions to towers that do not increase the height of the tower by more than 10% and
new equipment mounted that would not protrude more than 20 feet would not be a
“substantial increase in the size of the tower” under the Programmatic Agreement. Thus,
under the Agreement’s definition, a mountain ridge monopole could be extended so that it
would become skylighted in violation of the County’s Wireless Policy, and a 40-foot
monopole could have a 20-foot protrusion mounted to it, and neither of these changes
would be considered a substantial change. In addition, the Agreement does not address
whether the 10% and 20 foot thresholds pertain only to those towers in existence when
the Agreement was entered into, whether they pertain only to towers as they were
originally approved, or some other iteration. The Agreement also does not restrict the
number of expansions to which the 10% or 20 feet threshold might apply. Thus, a
wireless facility could be extended multiple times in a series of applications to whatever
height the structure would bear. The picture below shows a facility with an array at the top
that would not be considered a “substantial increase in the size of the tower”.
Photo from https://www.law.upenn.edu
As can be seen from the photograph, accepting the Programmatic Agreement definition could
result in facilities that do not comply with the County’s Wireless Policy by simply adding equipment to an
existing monopole. The initial applicant for a wireless facility would comply with the County’s wireless
regulations and be required to use flush mounted antennas. If the Programmatic Agreement definition
applied, subsequent additions to the wireless facility would not have flush mounted antenna. Staff believes
that Section 6409’s failure to use the terminology of the Programmatic Agreement was intentional.
Therefore, staff requests that the Board direct staff to develop a reasonable alternative definition of
“substantial change” that implements Section 6409 and is consistent with the County’s Wireless Policy.
Broadband Deployment
The Board also requested that the consultant determine how the County could encourage
broadband deployment into portions of the County not currently served. The consultant addresses this
issue on pages 36-37 of Attachment B. Staff notes that in 2011 the FCC was estimating that over 71% of
the County’s residences had access to broadband service and Centurylink has estimated that over 90% of
the County residences will have access by the end of 2012. For the remainder, there appear to be limited
options for encouraging broadband deployment. The recommended changes to the wireless regulations
should somewhat reduce the requirements that service providers must meet to establish new facilities, but
this ultimately becomes a business decision where the cost of providing service must be weighed against
the potential revenue, with these remaining low density areas proving an economic challenge.
This does not prohibit the County from considering other options. The School Division is
investigating options to provide broadband to all of its students within the Rural Areas, but is in the very
preliminary stages of developing a plan. At this time it is not known if that service could be provided to the
general public or to students only. Further, the system to be used and the number and location of sites
required to provide coverage is presently unknown. It is anticipated that more information on the School’s
project will be available in approximately six months.
The proposed changes to the County’s wireless regulations are not anticipated to require
additional County funding, and may result in less staff time spent on wireless facility review.
Staff recommends:
1) That the Board direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Intent for adoption to initiate the
regulatory changes recommended by staff and any additional changes as directed by the
Board. Unless otherwise directed by the Board, the process of ordinance development
would include engaging the wireless industry and public to gather input on ordinance
concepts before bringing this forward for public hearings. This work will need to be
prioritized against other staff efforts and a recommendation for prioritization will also be
submitted to the Board for consideration with the Resolution of Intent; and
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
2) That the Board directs staff to develop a reasonable alternative definition of “substantial
change” that implements Section 6409 and is consistent with the County’s Wireless
Policy.
_____
Mr. Fritz addressed the Board, stating that he would be going through the consultant’s report and
providing staff’s recommendations along with gathering input from the Board.
He explained that in December 2000, the current wireless policy was adopted; in 2004, the Board
adopted the ordinance; and in 2010, they made some minor changes. Mr. Fritz emphasized that the
Board has not really changed it much since the original version in 2000, and the 2004 ordinance really
just implemented things that were done in that policy. He reported that staff held a roundtable in June
2012, which the Board has results from. Since 2004, he said, the County has had 74 approvals and two
denials, with 43 Tier II applications and 33 Tier III applications. Mr. Fritz said staff are not able to provide
Tier I application numbers because those are handled simply as a building permit. He said that if you get
a Tier II approved, you then apply for the building permit to do it so it would be double-counting.
Mr. Fritz reported that the Board provided some direction so staff hired a consultant to help
understand how technology was changing deployment, what court decisions are influencing regulations,
what the FCC is doing and what their policy initiatives are, how changes in wireless will impact regulation
of deployment and how County policy should change to address those changes, and how broadband
deployment can be encouraged for portions of the County not currently served.
Mr. Fritz provided a map from the FCC’s website that shows mobile deployment, with lower to
higher speeds and no service areas. He said that Virginia really stands out when compared to other
surrounding states with higher speeds, and significant portions of Albemarle County are not served with
mobile broadband – and those areas have low population density as well as fairly rugged terrain. Mr. Fritz
stated that if you account for terrain, the level of deployment in Albemarle County appears to be the same
as it is in other counties, so regulation does not seem to be having that big of an impact just based on
coverage and speed of coverage. He said that the question of whether County regulations have an impact
on filling in some of the voids is a harder question to answer, but in looking at the map nothing really
stands out.
Mr. Fritz presented a map of unserved census blocks that are eligible for the Connect America
funds, and the FCC shows the unserved mobile portion as a population of 2,219. He noted that the
expanded Connect America funding is all in Southside and southwest Virginia – but not here. He also
showed a map of fixed wire line access to broadband, noting areas considered rural and those considered
urban, as well as those that are unserved. Mr. Fritz said that 71% of the County has access to fixed wire
line broadband service, with the population without access at about 20,500. He noted that Century Link
states that their extension to the south would increase coverage to 90% of the County.
Mr. Fritz stated that in their research and with the consultant’s input, staff arrived at three key
things that could be done to encourage broadband deployment: the first is to work with the School Board,
which is investigating providing access via school sites.
Mr. Boyd said he was curious as to what the schools are doing, and whether they are looking at
expending school funds to bring broadband to rural areas.
Mr. Fritz explained that that’s his understanding – but they are in the very early stages of doing
this, and they need to hire someone to do a propagation analysis to establish how big the unserved areas
are as well as what would be needed to cover those areas. He said the schools would have to inventory
what assets the schools have, what assets the County has, what assets the industry has – as well as
investigating public/private partnerships.
Mr. Boyd said he hoped the schools would talk to the Board about this.
Mr. Snow said that in his conversations with the schools, he understood them to say that they had
access to money and grants that the County wouldn’t have as a government.
Mr. Fritz stated that the schools also had access to bandwidth, and recommended that staff just
continue to work with them and bring information back to the Board.
Mr. Boyd commented that he just wouldn’t want to see it buried in a technology budget.
Mr. Foley said that the schools had talked about putting in a CIP request, and staff has reviewed it
but isn’t sure it is ready to be considered in a CIP – particularly in an amendment year. He said that there
needs to be some study done before staff could even be ready for the CIP.
Mr. Rooker stated that the summary indicates that the schools would be providing free, high-
speed internet access to some part of the County, yet to be defined. He said that his concern is having
people who are still paying for it while 30% of the County is getting it for free.
Mr. Boyd added, and paying the taxes that’s funding the other.
Mr. Rooker said the schools would be competing with private carriers as well, and the question is
who is going to pay for it if you’re getting it for free.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Mr. Snow asked if Century Link had said they would have 90% of the County covered.
Mr. Fritz said that was reported in the press. Mr. Foley said that figure was once Century Link
has completed their expansion. Mr. Fritz stated that it would likely be in the western and northwestern part
of the County.
He reported that staff’s second idea as to what can be done to encourage broadband deployment
is to amend the ordinance to make construction of new facilities easier, and the other would be to work
with public agencies to determine the availability of public facilities where collocation could occur – federal,
state or local resources that might exist.
Mr. Fritz explained that staff has broken down the changes into four categories – changes to
address law, changes to the design of sites, changes to the review process, and changes to the submittal
requirements. He said that to address changes in law, staff recommends adding definitions such as
collocation, substantial change, and existing facility. He said that part of the approach allows equipment to
be replaced on existing towers regardless of how the tower was originally permitted, with only a building
permit. Mr. Fritz stated that there are some other changes to ensure that the regulations are consistent
with the FCC rulings, changes in federal law, and whether the shot clock ruling should be formalized.
Regarding recommended changes to the design of sites, Mr. Fritz said they would remove the
limitation on the number of arrays permitted on any individual tower – currently limited to three before
pushing an application into another tier category.
Mr. Rooker asked if that was required by any change in the law. Mr. Fritz responded that it was
not.
Mr. Rooker asked how an unlimited number of antennae would impact visibility. Mr. Fritz replied
that it would probably be limited, because an applicant would be bringing those down closer into the tree
line or at a lower height.
Mr. Rooker noted that one of the recommendations is increasing height, and eliminating the need
for tree screening. Mr. Fritz said that was true for some towers, and one of the recommendations is that
60-foot structures be permitted by right.
Mr. Rooker asked, anywhere? Mr. Fritz responded, anywhere.
Mr. Rooker said, your next door neighbor’s yard? Mr. Fritz responded yes.
Mr. Rooker stated that he is not going to support this.
Mr. Fritz reported that the recommendations include investigating the potential changes to
mounting and size limitations, based on the new types of antennae being used – which are tilted more
than the old flush-mounted antennae. He said that another suggestion is to remove or modify setback
requirements.
Mr. Rooker said that was based on the distance to the property line.
Ms. Mallek said it provided a fall zone.
Mr. Rooker said that this suggests eliminating a fall zone.
Mr. Fritz said either eliminated or modified.
Mr. Fritz stated that other recommendations include removing antenna design requirements for an
antenna located within a structure; investigating modifications to the maximum monopole width to ensure
that the cable can still be routed inside the monopole. He noted that the cabling needed for the
technology can be a little larger, and difficult to adhere to the size limitations currently in effect. Mr. Fritz
said that staff is suggesting increasing the number of facilities permitted within 200 feet of each other from
three to four before a Tier III application is required.
Mr. Rooker said that he can understand some of the recommendations as stand alone
approaches, but when combining things like higher towers and more antennae with elimination of tree
cover, staff is really talking about creating cellular antennae farms – in some cases as a matter of right –
and that’s troubling. He stated that he has spoken with several people in the industry, and all electronic
and communications equipment is becoming more and more capable of doing this in a smaller profile –
but this seems to assume the need for bigger and bigger equipment.
Mr. Thomas said that the terrain is the largest impact.
Mr. Rooker said that the terrain has not changed.
Mr. Thomas said the height gets them above the trees.
Mr. Rooker said that when the Board did the original ordinance that was considered, and what
exists today is much more sophisticated and could generally be done in a smaller profile than when the
ordinance was originally passed.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Mr. Fritz agreed that was generally the case, adding that the roundtable discussions revealed a
desire to increase the height above the trees in order to reduce the impacts on the trees on the
propagation of the signal. He said there was also a desire to have more antennae located on an individual
structure to accommodate changing technologies.
He reported that changes in the review process would allow for wooden poles to be replaced with
metal poles with only a building permit review, as a number of those are starting to rot because of their
age. Mr. Fritz said that monopoles would be allowed up to 60 feet by right, and Tier II monopoles would
be up to 15 feet above the reference tree; Tier II facilities would be approved administratively by staff
rather than the Board; wireless facilities would be exempted from the critical slopes provisions and ARB
review. He explained that the latter recommendation was because they are already being reviewed for
visibility by staff and have standards by which they are being reviewed. Mr. Fritz stated that the
recommendations also include removing the rural historic districts from the list of avoidance areas, as the y
have been able to be sited there under visibility criteria.
Mr. Fritz said that changes in the submittal requirements would be amended to include any
significant features near the facility as trees or screening material. He said that the recommendations
include eliminating the mandatory annual reporting requirement, and instead request that service
providers submit a report upon request of the County. Mr. Fritz stated that staff has to keep track of those
reports, and it is difficult at best.
Ms. Mallek asked if the reports were the basis for the use tax for those facilities. Mr. Fritz
responded that he didn’t believe they were used in that way, as staff is not turning that information over to
anyone.
Mr. Fritz reported that there was a major change in law that affected local review – Section 64.09
of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 – and that was the specific language
changed within the act: “Local government may not deny and shall approve any eligible facility’s request
for a modification of an existing wireless tower or bay station that does not substantially change the
physical dimensions of such tower or bay station”.
Mr. Fritz said the problem is that the law does not contain a definition for what a substantial
change is, although it does define eligible facility.
He noted that there was a preexisting agreement called the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement
for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, that existed prior to the tax relief act, and it was an agreement
with federal agencies impacting how facilities were reviewed against impacts on historic resources. Mr.
Fritz said that there are many who believe that the definition contained in the Nationwide Programmatic
Agreement should be used to clarify what a substantial change is. He stated that the tax relief act uses
does not substantially change the physical dimensions, but there is no definition contained in the law; the
programmatic agreement uses the term substantial increase in the size of the tower.
Mr. Fritz stated that they don’t use the same terminology, and the programmatic agreement would
allow a tower to be increased by 10% or 20 feet, whichever is greater – and would allow up to four
cabinets or one new equipment shelter; it would allow antennae to protrude from the tower a distance
equal to the width of the tower or 20 feet, whichever is greater, and limits excavation outside the lease
area. He said that part of the problem is it does not define what an existing facility is, and the question is
whether it is existing when the programmatic agreement was adopted – in March 2001, when the adoption
of Section 6409 was effective, or at the time an application is made.
He presented a Photoshopped depiction of a facility, stating that it meets current requirements
with flush-mounted antenna – and stating that under the programmatic agreement it could be increased
20 feet in height with antenna protruding up to 20 feet from the tower; and if the existing facility is at the
time an application is made, providers could keep doing that until the tower can’t accommodate it anymore
– and the County must approve it, if you use the definition of what a ‘substantial change’ is by how it is
defined in the programmatic agreement.
Ms. Mallek asked how those changes could be non-substantial. Mr. Fritz responded that the way
he is reading the agreement, it says that is not a substantial increase in the size of the tower.
Mr. Rooker said you could keep going up 20 feet at a time and keep adding new antenna array.
Mr. Fritz stated that the programmatic agreement would say that is a permitted use, but the law
says that the County has to approve something that does not substantially change the physical
dimensions. He said that the language between the two provisions differs, but in the roundtable
discussion when the issue was raised, there was comment made that the programmatic agreement
should be used to determine what a substantial change in the physical dimensions is.
Mr. Rooker said that the programmatic agreement is not binding on the County, and regardless
anyone could look at the picture and see a substantial change. He stated that using a different array and
much higher antennae would constitute a substantial change.
Mr. Fritz stated that staff is recommending that the Board direct them to return with a proposed
resolution of intent for adoption to initiate regulatory changes, develop a definition for substantial change,
and engage the wireless industry and general public while developing the ordinances. He said that it
would need to be prioritized along other staff efforts, and that schedule would be included when the
resolution is brought back to them.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Fritz if he is going to go over the suggestions that he presented at the
beginning of his presentation. Mr. Fritz replied however the Board wanted to proceed.
Mr. Rooker said that he didn’t personally have any problems with the recommendations that are at
the end of the presentation. He said that he thought definitions for collocation, substantial change and
existing facilities must be determined in order to have the ordinance meet federal requirements and that
they could be defined in a way that is consistent with the things the Board has considered important in the
past.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that some of the provisions in the original ordinance – such as the seven-foot
height limit above the trees and the number of arrays on a pole – were compromises by which an
applicant must prove there wasn’t significant increase in visibility. He emphasized that there was no
magic to those numbers, they were reached on compromise.
Mr. Davis stated that the discussion was centered on acceptable visual impact, and that’s what
the Comp Plan talks about and the 360 Communications litigation addressed, and that’s the appropriate
consideration for the Board.
Mr. Rooker said the industry wanted more leeway, but the public wanted less visibility – and now it
seems that the line is being moved. He said that he does not know who we’re compromising with.
Ms. Mallek stated that this was in the very early stages of finding out what the public wants.
Mr. Boyd said the other part of the equation was the consumer who wants increased capacity and
facilities.
Ms. Mallek noted that she wasn’t sure consumers understand what the proposed differences are.
Mr. Thomas said that consumers want to push a button and have it work.
Mr. Rooker stated that there’s no guarantee of more service just because of higher visibility
towers in a community, adding that surrounding areas with high-speed wireless don’t necessarily rely on
higher towers.
Mr. Boyd asked why the industry would want to increase tower height. Mr. Rooker responded that
the industry wants to put one tower up high to achieve lower cost, adding that the community spent a lot of
time developing a policy that allowed for more towers but with minimal visibility. He also said that there
were no towers in Albemarle that had the giant arrays found elsewhere, only the ones that preceded the
ordinance such as that at Fashion Square.
Mr. Thomas said there was one at Airport Road, and the one behind the phone company on Rio
Road had many antennae added to it.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is very ugly.
Mr. Thomas said it is operable.
Mr. Snow stated that 2/3 of the County has coverage, and the Board is not talking about adding
towers all over the County.
Mr. Rooker said what the Board is considering is changing the whole standard for what kind of
towers are allowed, and what level of visibility is permitted.
Mr. Snow asked why the standards needed to be changed for areas that already have adequate
cell coverage. Mr. Rooker responded that in his mind the Board does not, although there are some
recommendations here that make sense – such as the size of the monopole.
Mr. Snow asked how many additional towers it would take to cover the unserved areas in the
southern part of the County. Mr. Fritz responded that there is no way of knowing.
Mr. Rooker added that the Board has already approved some in the south that haven’t been built
yet.
Mr. Snow said that he would like for the people in his district to have access to a better network,
and would be interested in looking at this on a case by case basis rather than changing requirements for
the entire County.
Mr. Rooker stated that you wouldn’t really be allowed to do that.
Ms. Mallek said that would be like spot zoning, where there are different rules for different people,
and that probably wouldn’t fly.
Mr. Rooker said that Century Link is already going down into that area.
Mr. Snow stated that Century Link told him that they could get cable into his district for about
$350,000.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
Mr. Rooker noted that Comcast has even higher speed cable than Century Link.
Mr. Thomas agreed that Comcast was faster.
Mr. Davis said that the same issues apply to all providers – density of users and a profit margin to
make it worth it. He said that they all evaluate their expansion based on the number of customers they
can get in a square mile.
Mr. Rooker stated that it would be helpful to know how the towers approved on Route 20 would
impact the area Mr. Snow has expressed concern about.
Mr. Snow agreed, and wondered how many more towers it would take to complete coverage
there. He said that the Board could grant the towers by permit.
Mr. Davis said that’s what the County does now, and a Tier III tower can be any size by special
use permit – that’s under the existing ordinance, and you’re not getting applications for those towers.
Mr. Rooker said that providers don’t have enough customers to warrant spending money to
provide that service. He added that the only reason electricity is in rural areas is because of the Rural
Electric Act required it.
Mr. Boyd asked what led staff to propose that much relaxation of our current rules and
regulations.
Mr. Fritz stated that the Board had asked staff to go meet with the wireless industry, so they did,
and combining those comments with the consultant’s review led them to this point – as did a review of
past actions that had been approved. He stated that staff believes that there may be some change in
attitudes towards wireless. He added that the strongest recommendation out of this is to have the Board
to direct staff to investigate these further and speak to a broader audience.
Mr. Thomas asked what reasons did the industry representatives give for having the towers go
higher. Mr. Fritz responded coverage area. He explained that the providers are wanting to be able to use
one facility to provide 4G service, and they need to put multiple antennae on there.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board has approved those – they’ve had probably 10 of those come by
them in the last three or four months, and they’ve all been approved. He stated that they’ve been
approved within the County’s standards.
Mr. Rooker said that there’s part of this that must be done under federal law to clean up the
ordinance. He stated that the Board has to create some definitions – if you want a supportable
ordinance, you need the substantial change definition.
Mr. Davis stated that there are some process changes that are also important, because the
approvable applications should be approved efficiently – within the 90-150 day guidelines the County
operates under. He emphasized that the bigger picture though is whether there is a new viewpoint of the
Board as to encouraging a more rapid deployment of wireless in the County, as its previous position with
visibility created some high standards. Mr. Davis said that this made the County a leader in the visibility
aspects, but the consultant has pointed out that times have changed and more people are relying on
wireless telephone now, and the trend appears that hard line phone lines may be the dinosaurs of the
future.
He added that it may become necessary for everyone with a land line phone to replace it with a
wireless phone to be able to get adequate telecommunications service, so the question is how the County
– within its visual standards and Comprehensive Plan and priorities – advances a technology. Mr. Davis
stated that some of these suggestions recognize that there are tradeoffs in being able to accomplish that.
He said that this is a check in point with the Board to see whether or not they’re ready to start making
some of those tradeoffs, as is being pushed by the industry – and perhaps by some consumers of the
service.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is there any guarantee that if the Board makes any of these changes,
somebody’s going to go down and put in a tower someplace. Mr. Davis and Mr. Fritz responded no.
Mr. Davis said there is no guarantee anyone would have a telephone or computer. Mr. Rooker
said that was a little more predictable than whether a company would make an investment to serve 20
customers.
Mr. Fritz asked if the Board wanted to go through the suggested changes one by one.
Ms. Mallek responded that it would be helpful to approach it that way.
Mr. Fritz said that the updating of equipment to current standards had Board support.
Ms. Mallek clarified that it didn’t include doubling the size of the pieces.
Mr. Fritz stated that it referred to replacement.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
Mr. Davis said that this would be towers that are currently nonconforming, prior to the ordinance
or special use permit requirements.
Ms. Mallek said it would be helpful to have a map denoting the location of those when the Board
starts to do public information sessions.
Mr. Fritz said staff has a map of the ones that have been approved, but not those predating
approvals.
He said there were some other changes, including considering whether the processes with shot
clock need to be codified.
Mr. Rooker said to him the approval of antennae requests would depend on the kinds of arrays
being pursued, as the Board has generally approved requests for flush-mounted antenna.
Mr. Foley pointed out that these are just items that should to go the community roundtables, not
that the Board has to decide on now. He added that the community may come out and voice opinions that
staff will bring back to the Board.
Mr. Fritz asked about the suggestion to remove or modify setback requirements.
Ms. Mallek said she wasn’t thrilled with that proposal, and Mr. Thomas said it needed to be
considered for modification.
Ms. Mallek asked to revisit the suggestion regarding single-mounted antennae versus multiple.
Mr. Fritz explained that currently the ordinance says the face of the antenna can’t be more than 12 inches
from the face of the tower, and it has a size limitation on the total square footage of the antenna, but staff
is recommending that the Board look at the current state of technology of antennae design.
Mr. Rooker commented that in general you can get more out of less with all electronic equipment,
but all that comes forward are proposals to increase the size.
Mr. Fritz asked for their input on the suggestion to remove or modify setback requirements.
Board members agreed to look at it.
Mr. Rooker said that he didn’t know where the Board would get the standards for sizes of cables.
Mr. Fritz responded that staff would need to do some research to figure that one out.
Mr. Fritz also said the Board had some debate on the limit of three antennae per pole.
Mr. Boyd asked why it was decided to be three.
Mr. Rooker responded that the Board was trying to avoid visual circumstances that look like
antennae farms.
Mr. Davis said that Carter’s Mountain had been thrown in as being an example.
Mr. Rooker said he probably wouldn’t support going beyond what’s in place now, especially if the
Board is talking about by-right approvals.
Mr. Fritz asked if the Board wanted staff to keep the item regarding a by-right height.
Ms. Mallek said that if there is no tree, it changes the whole basis of the County’s policy – which is
based on a reference tree and not being backlit.
Mr. Fritz said that the 60-foot height was pulled completely out of the air. He explained that as a
system matures, antennas come down in size because they are covering a smaller geographic footprint –
so staff was proposing that a 60-foot by right would allow for sites to be constructed because they don’t
have to cover as much ground, and it increases capacity.
Mr. Rooker said that if there was an appropriate set of standards in place, it could be considered –
but the thought of allowing a monopole on any residential lot in the County does not sit well with him.
Ms. Mallek stated that it hasn’t sat well with citizens either, adding that when you get to 60 feet
there are plenty of five-story buildings it could be mounted on.
Mr. Thomas suggested that staff adjust the wording regarding to a pole’s proximity to a tree.
Mr. Davis said that this does not address coverage, it addresses capacity, and with more
customers wanting data and other services, there need to be more facilities closer together to be able to
provide the capacity to cover all the phones being used at the same time.
Mr. Rooker said that the ability to send out a signal with smaller equipment has improved
dramatically, and he does not support this concept but does support a way to look into providing additional
in-field signals to make it simpler and easier for the industry without impacting visibility.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
Mr. Snow asked if there was any way to put arrays or antennas on existing telephone poles.
Mr. Fritz responded that the poles didn’t have the surplus weight capacity and were too short in
many cases.
Ms. Mallek said that at the Keene Landfill the County would want to have communications for
police and the training facility, and maybe that location could accommodate higher towers to cover that
area.
Mr. Fritz noted that one of staff’s recommendations involves working with public agencies to use
their sites and facilities.
Ms. Mallek said that Congress has prohibited discussions of health, but citizens haven’t forgotten
about those impacts and there is a big argument in the public debate as to whether these towers should
be placed on schools.
Mr. Davis stated that it has been very clearly established by law as not being a proper
consideration for the approval process.
Mr. Fritz asked if staff should investigate changing the definition of a Tier II facility to be 15 feet.
Mr. Rooker responded that he didn’t think he could support it, and the Board should explore as
many ways as possible to improve coverage without negatively impacting visibility.
Mr. Boyd said he didn’t have a problem with looking at it, because every item would have a
discussion of favorable and unfavorable factors.
Mr. Fritz stated that in looking at Tier II facilities, whatever the Board defines it as is being done
administratively instead of coming to the Board as a special exception.
Mr. Thomas said he had no problem with that.
Mr. Fritz said the most common Tier II facility the County sees, by far, is the stand alone treetop
facility.
Mr. Boyd commented that some of the issues can’t be considered in isolation.
Mr. Rooker said he would support looking at the Tier II changes, as there would still be a small
equipment box on the ground.
Ms. Mallek said the box isn’t the problem, it is the road needed to do the construction.
Mr. Fritz clarified that staff considers the road part of the facility, and most of the time there have
been critical slopes it’s been related to the activity going around the tower itself because they’re utilizing an
existing road that accesses it. He reminded the Board that they are reviewed as facilities, from where they
start developing it with the road to get to the tower to the top of the tower – so if they are crossing critical
slopes, the road itself could be a visibility issue.
Mr. Davis pointed out that there could be standards – by-right conditions – related to this to ensure
there are no impacts that wouldn’t otherwise be considered during the current waiver process.
Mr. Fritz said that staff could go back and look at the number of waivers that have occurred with
the wireless facilities.
Mr. Boyd commented that it is clear that most of the issues here have been considered through a
roundtable process that included the public.
Mr. Fritz said the roundtable staff held was just industry representatives. He also said that what
staff is saying here is that they don’t know what the design standards should be – but need some
guidance from the Board as to the broader issues, such as whether wireless facilities should be exempt
from ARB review.
Ms. Mallek stated that she would not support that, because the last thing the County needed was
a tower like the one in Goochland.
Mr. Fritz said that the reason staff recommended that is because wireless facilities are already
reviewed primarily for visibility, and their recommendations are more critical than the ARB’s
recommendations because they are using design guidelines whereas staff is relying on the ordinance and
wireless policy – which are more focused on visibility.
Ms. Mallek stated that she would keep it in for discussion then.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to get some feedback from the ARB also, and have them look
at proposed changes to the ordinance and how they might impact visibility in the Entrance Corridors.
Mr. Fritz said the ARB could be invited to the roundtable discussions.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
Mr. Fritz asked the Board about the suggestion to allow towers in the rural historic districts without
going to Tier III, which is currently automatic for towers in an avoidance area.
Mr. Boyd noted that a lot of towers were that way.
Ms. Mallek said that she is not likely to support this because there is a huge community
investment in time and effort creating the historic districts, and to take way the possible protection of the
Tier III process is not appropriate in her view.
Mr. Snow said he would still be willing to look at the issue as part of further discussions.
Mr. Boyd said if the restrictions are tightened, these applications could be administratively
approved as Tier II.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that he hasn’t seen a case where location in a historic district made a
difference in the decision making, but that’s with the current visibility standards – and if those are
changed, that might make a difference.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that that’s why he stated earlier that the pieces of this are interrelated.
Mr. Fritz stated that the recommendation to amend submittal requirements was somewhat similar
to amending what’s on a minor site plan, and the criteria now is currently so broad it could be refined so
that bulky information is omitted. He said that an example of this would be not to show every tree in the
area, only those within the tower area.
Ms. Mallek said she wanted to be sure there was enough information provided, and perhaps a
good quality photograph rather than a hand-drawn sketch would be helpful.
Mr. Rooker agreed that looking at a radius would be acceptable, and he wants to make certain
that there is an aerial photo or something that shows the context.
Mr. Fritz said that staff feels the information could be tailored without any loss in quality of
information.
Mr. Fritz also stated that staff strongly recommends not having reports submitted regularly, and
doing them by request instead.
Ms. Mallek said that it would be more chasing around after them than just getting a routine report.
Mr. Fritz stated that the ordinance says providers are supposed to provide an annual report that
indicates they are still using a particular facility, but they don’t remember to do that and staff has a hard
time keeping track of the submittals. He said that this reporting requirement does not really accomplish
anything, and could instead request from providers a periodic report that was a list of facilities operating.
Mr. Rooker said there seems to be a lot of reporting taking place for something that isn’t really
necessary, and if staff wanted to they could request from service providers a list of towers not being used.
Mr. Fritz agreed, noting that this was a recommendation from zoning staff.
Mr. Thomas asked when staff was in roundtable discussions with the industry representatives, did
they give any indication of what other localities require as far as reporting.
Mr. Fritz explained that industry representatives recommended getting rid of the mandatory
reporting requirement. He also stated that staff and the industry are in total agreement on this matter.
Mr. Fritz concluded his report by stating that staff would bring back a resolution of intent along with
a prioritization as to where this would be in their workload.
Mr. Thomas said that staff had done a terrific job on this.
Mr. Fritz said that staff envisions a similar process for this as what was done in adopting the
original wireless policy, talking with a broad group of people and meeting with the ARB and the Planning
Commission, then bringing it back to the Board.
Mr. Boyd suggested separating the items that are mandatory in order to conform with regulations
from the local items.
Mr. Fritz agreed that it could be broken into parts.
Mr. Snow said he would still like some feedback on getting Century Link and/or Comcast down
into the lower part of the Samuel Miller District, and to involve them in discussions of what it would take to
get cable down into those areas.
Mr. Foley said that the County Executive’s office would work on that aspect of this, as this involves
having the private sector expand service in other ways.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Mr. Snow commented that he receives three or four emails a week regarding businesses trying to
operate in the County, and schools trying to get better service.
Mr. Boyd asked if the best approach was going through staff, or if Mr. Snow would be better off
reaching out to major suppliers of service and asking them directly.
Mr. Snow agreed with that approach.
Mr. Rooker commented that there was a huge amount of money available through Connect
America, and perhaps if a vendor would move forward if they had a supplement to offset their costs the
County could apply for a grant to get that done. He explained that it is just the initial capital cost that
keeps them out in most cases; the operating cost is not generally huge. He said that if the schools bring
forward a plan as they are suggesting, there are schools in Mr. Snow’s area – and perhaps the proposal
could focus on currently unserved areas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek said that her earlier question about the cost recovery process resulted from knowledge
that the issue of County residents receiving a bill had not been addressed.
Mr. Davis explained that staff had substantially prepared the request for an Office of Inspector
General opinion. The reason the Board needs it is because federal laws require billing to be applied
equally in order not to violate Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement laws. He said that the OIG opinions
are fact-specific, and based on the facts presented they determine whether you are in violation of those
acts. Mr. Davis emphasized that localities that have been prosecuted have had very substantial liabilities
associated with violating those acts. He said that staff delayed submitting the request because the opinion
is only as good as the fact situation, and it appeared that the County would be moving ahead more quickly
on a determination as to whether or not there would be billing by all volunteer agencies in the County, and
that would substantially change the facts as to how the funding is going to be provided and who would be
billed potentially. He said that he and Mr. Foley have discussed this and determined that it is possible to
go ahead and submit the letter for opinion, but if they do that and the negotiations go forward they may
end up needing to send another letter seeking protection of a second opinion. Mr. Davis stated that staff
has been prepared to send it out, but the negotiations continued beyond the point they thought they would
be.
Ms. Mallek commented that she continues to hear about exorbitant bills.
Mr. Davis said that the compassionate billing policy allows anyone to determine that they would
only be billed for the insurance amount.
Ms. Mallek said it would be helpful to see a copy of what is sent out to people, because people are
missing the number to call if they can’t pay the bill. She stated that some of the longer distance trips and
higher levels of care were more costly, with a minimum of $500.
Mr. Rooker said he thought there were fixed fees.
Mr. Davis noted that there are tiered fees depending on the level of service provided, but under
federal law everyone must be billed – which is being done, along with standards for compassionate billing
that allow people to self-certify their ability to pay.
Mr. Rooker said that if the County is stagnant on expansion of billing services, staff should go
ahead and send the letter in and get the approval so no one would have to be billed upon approval.
Mr. Davis stated that the basis for that opinion approval would be that the County is supporting
emergency services being provided with taxpayer dollars, so that any resident would no longer have to pay
the co-pay because that is being covered by taxpayer dollars. He said that opinion would not relieve them
from having to bill people in the City or surrounding counties.
Mr. Rooker said he would be in favor of sending the letter so the policy could be instituted.
Mr. Boyd suggested holding off until the position is clarified for the opinion.
Mr. Foley said that staff had a meeting last night and are hopeful to reach a conclusion in the next
several months. He stated that they needed to make a decision soon, because if it goes beyond January
there is concern about the revenues they collect.
Mr. Davis stated that all staff would need to do at this point is verify the facts of the letter, which
was drafted back in March.
Mr. Foley said that staff would proceed, and if the process does not work the letter may take care
of the situation.
Mr. Rooker noted that if approval is granted from the submittal, it may help in talking with the
recalcitrant companies, to be able to say there is a letter confirming it.
Mr. Boyd suggested deferring the decision until next week when the Board could get an update.
September 5, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
Mr. Foley said that was all he had for an update, and not much more could be discussed until their
next meeting the following month. He said the plan is to go out to the volunteer boards that are involved
with this and share the proposal with them to garner their reaction then finalize a proposal they would have
to approve. He said that no one is showing their cards at this point, so it is hard to tell how it is going to
play out.
Mr. Rooker said it sounds like a longer time frame for that.
Board members agreed to go ahead and send the letter out.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:49
p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 10/03/2012
Initials: EWJ